Effective Approaches for

Advancing Congestion Pricing

in a Metropolitan Region

A Primer ON LESSONS LEARNED and

best practices

FHWA-HOP-12-030
Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high quality 

information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner 

that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to 

ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its 

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its 

programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
1. Report No.

FHWA-HOP-12-030

2. Government Accession 

No.

3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Effective Approaches for Advancing Congestion Pricing in a Metropolitan 

Region – A Primer on Lessons Learned and Best Practices

5. Report Date

March 31, 2012

6. Performing Organization

Code

7. Authors

Anjali Mahendra (ICF), Michael Grant (ICF), Myron Swisher (SAIC)

8. Performing Organization

Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

8301 Greensboro Drive

McLean, VA 22102

ICF Incorporated, LLC

9300 Lee Highway

Fairfax, VA 22031

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-06-D-00005

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

United States Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period

Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

Wayne Berman, COTM

16. Abstract

This primer is intended to raise awareness among staff at MPOs and their partner agencies about the 

potential role of congestion pricing in supporting regional goals as well as the most effective approaches for 

advancing congestion pricing strategies in a region. It draws upon lessons learned from pilot and ongoing 

programs implemented around the United States as well as efforts to integrate congestion pricing into 

regional transportation plans. The content of the primer is based on discussions that took place at four 

peer to peer-to-peer practitioner workshops organized by FHWA in September 2011. Using illustrative case 

studies, this primer provides information on effective approaches for addressing the challenges of advancing 

congestion pricing in a regional context, including: (i) building public and decisionmaker acceptability; (ii) 

linking congestion pricing to regional goals and objectives; (iii) achieving interagency collaboration; (iv) 

analyzing congestion pricing impacts as part of the planning process; and (v) addressing implementation 

challenges and sustaining user support. The primer ends with recommendations of initial steps that 

planners, policymakers, and others can take in developing comprehensive regional congestion pricing plans, 

while maximizing the chances of acceptance from the public and decisionmakers.

17. Key Words

congestion pricing, transportation planning, regional plan, regional

goals, lessons learned, challenges

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions.

21. No of Pages

52

22. Price

N/A

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized.

Technical Report Documentation Page
Acknowledgements

This document was developed with input from many practitioners across the country. FHWA would specifically 

like to thank the following individuals who helped shape this document through their presentations and 

discussion in peer-to-peer workshops held September 2011.

Ken Buckeye, Minnesota Department of Transportation

John Doan, Metropolitan Council Member, District 10

Jeff Frkonja, FHWA Resource Center

Ron Kirby, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

Connie Kozlak, Metropolitan Council

Dan Lamers, North Central Texas Council of Governments

Matthew MacGregor, Texas Department of Transportation

Tom Maguire, New York City Department of Transportation

Arlene McCarthy, Metropolitan Council

José Luis Moscovich, San Francisco County Transportation Authority

Tom Murtha, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

Annie Nam, Southern California Association of Governments

Carl Ohrn, Metropolitan Council

Camelia Ravanbakht, Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization

John Swanson, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

David Vautin, San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Commission

Stephanie Wiggins, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority 
Contents

Executive Summary 4

1. Introduction 5

Purpose of the Primer and Intended Audience 5

Process of Developing the Primer 7

Types of Congestion Pricing Strategies to Consider in Regional Planning 7

Variably Priced Lanes 7

Variably Priced Highways, Bridges, or Tunnels 8

Priced Zones 8

Priced Road Networks 9

Pricing not Involving Tolls (e.g., Variable Parking Pricing, Vehicle Miles Traveled Fees) 9

Organization of the Primer 9

2. Benefits from Using Congestion Pricing to Support Regional Goals 10

Improving Multimodal Transportation System Performance 10

Generating Revenues for Transportation Investments 11

Supporting Economic Competitiveness / Freight Movement 12

Supporting Environmental Quality, Energy Efficiency, and Sustainability 13

Enhancing Travel Options, Transit, Livability, and Sustainability 13

Supporting a State of Good Repair 14

Designing Congestion Pricing Strategies to Achieve Regional Benefits 14

3. Challenges Associated with Planning and Implementing Congestion Pricing 16

Achieving Public and Decisionmaker Acceptability for Congestion Pricing 16

Establishing Compatibility of Regional Goals with Congestion Pricing Objectives 17

Interagency Collaboration on Congestion Pricing Programs 17

Analytical Challenges in Evaluating Impacts and Integrating Congestion Pricing into 

Regional Plans 18

Legislative Barriers and Other Implementation Challenges 19

4. Effective Practices for Integrating Congestion Pricing into Metropolitan Transportation Plans20

Gaining Acceptance from Decisionmakers and the Public 20

Linking Congestion Pricing to Regional Goals and Objectives 25

Establishing Regional Partnerships 25

Analyzing Congestion Pricing as Part of the Planning Process 29

Gaining and Sustaining Support from Users and Decisionmakers 36

5. Getting Started 38

Resources 40

APPENDIX 44

References 46
2 |

List of Abbreviations

BART Bay Area Rapid Transit

BCA Benefit-Cost Analysis

BRT Bus Rapid Transit 

Caltrans California Department of Transportation

CBD Central Business District

CMP Congestion Management Process

DC District of Columbia 

DOT Department of Transportation 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EJ Environmental Justice

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GDOT Georgia Department of Transportation

GHG Greenhouse gas 

GPS Geographic Positioning System

HOT High Occupancy Toll 

HOV High Occupancy Vehicle

HOV 2+ Vehicles with two or more occupants

HOV 3+ Vehicles with three or more occupants

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

I-30 Interstate 30 

ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems

L.A. Los Angeles 

L.A. Metro Another name for the above, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

LACMTA Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
E ffective A pproaches for A dvancing C ongestion P ricing in a M etropolitan R egion | 3

MBUF Mileage Based User Fee

MNDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation

mph miles per hour 

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission 

MWCOG Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

NCTCOG North Central Texas Council of Governments

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NGO Non-Government Organization

NYMTC New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

PPP Public-private Partnership

PSRC Puget Sound Regional Council

ROW Right of Way 

SCAG Southern California Association of Governments

SFCTA San Francisco County Transportation Authority

SOV Single Occupancy Vehicle

SR State Route 

TAZ Traffic/Transportation Analysis Zone

TIP Transportation Improvement Plan

TXDOT Texas Department of Transportation

U. S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

U.S. United States 

VMT vehicle miles traveled

WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
4 |

Executive Summary

Congestion pricing strategies offer potential benefits to communities from an economic, environmental, and social 

perspective. However, these strategies face significant political challenges in gaining acceptance as a viable option in 

regional planning. While some success has been achieved on individual pricing projects, such as conversion of highoccupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes and demonstration projects funded by Federal 

grants such as the Value Pricing Pilot Program, many of these efforts have been focused on individual projects, and 

there has been limited consideration of the broader role that congestion pricing can play in a regional context. 

This primer is intended to raise awareness among staff at MPOs and their partner agencies about the potential role 

of congestion pricing in supporting regional goals as well as the most effective approaches for advancing congestion 

pricing strategies in a region. It draws upon lessons learned from pilot and ongoing programs implemented around 

the United States as well as efforts to integrate congestion pricing into regional transportation plans. Using illustrative 

case studies, this primer provides detailed information on: 

- How congestion pricing can support various regional planning goals, including providing needed funding 

 for transportation system investments; and

- Effective approaches for addressing the challenges of advancing congestion pricing in a regional context, 

 including addressing public acceptance, equity concerns, interagency collaboration, and analytical issues 

 associated with the metropolitan transportation planning process. 

The content of the primer is primarily based on discussions that took place at four peer to peer-to-peer practitioner 

workshops organized by FHWA in Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, and Washington, DC in September 2011. The 

workshops included presentations and panel discussions focusing on lessons learned by practitioners from different 

regions of the country who have implemented, planned, or conducted studies for congestion pricing programs. 

Participants at the workshops included MPO planners, Federal and State DOT staff, and representatives from transit 

agencies, tolling authorities, and consulting firms. 

The key themes around which the discussion and examples in this primer are centered include:

■ Building Public and Decisionmaker Acceptability

■ Linking Congestion Pricing to Regional Goals and Objectives

■ Achieving Interagency Collaboration

■ Analyzing Congestion Pricing Impacts as Part of the Planning Process

■ Addressing Implementation Challenges and Sustaining User Support

The primer ends with recommendations of initial steps that planners, policymakers, and others can take in developing 

comprehensive regional congestion pricing plans, while maximizing the chances of acceptance from the public and 

decisionmakers.
E ffective A pproaches for A dvancing C ongestion P ricing in a M etropolitan R egion | 5

1. Introduction

For decades, transportation agencies have directed 

their planning efforts at meeting regional goals of mobility, accessibility, and economic vitality. As metropolitan planning organizations (MPO), and their planning partners at State Departments of Transportation 

(DOT), transit agencies, and local governments work 

together to develop metropolitan transportation plans, 

many agencies are looking for innovative approaches 

to advance these regional goals, while functioning in 

economically constrained times.

Congestion pricing approaches – including 

various forms of road pricing, parking pricing, and 

mileage-based user fees – offer potential benefits to 

communities from an economic, environmental, and 

social perspective. However, these strategies face 

significant political challenges 

in gaining acceptance as a viable 

option in regional planning. 

While some success has been 

achieved on individual pricing 

projects, such as conversion of 

high occupancy vehicle (HOV) 

lanes to high occupancy toll 

(HOT) lanes and demonstration 

projects funded by Federal 

grants such as the Value Pricing 

Pilot Program, many of these 

efforts have been focused on 

individual projects, and there 

has been limited consideration 

of the broader role that congestion pricing can play in 

a regional context. 

To advance congestion pricing at a regional scale, 

transportation planners, decisionmakers, and the 

public need a better understanding of the role of 

congestion pricing in addressing regional goals and 

transportation funding needs. They also can benefit 

from lessons learned from regions that have begun to 

study and plan for congestion pricing as part of their 

metropolitan transportation plans.

Purpose of the Primer and Intended 

Audience

As part of the Federal Highway Administration’s 

(FHWA) Congestion Pricing Primer series, this 

primer is intended to raise awareness among staff at 

MPOs and their partner agencies about the potential 

role of congestion pricing in supporting regional 

goals as well as the most effective approaches for 

advancing congestion pricing strategies in a region. 

It draws upon lessons learned from pilot and ongoing 

programs implemented around the United States 

as well as efforts to integrate congestion pricing into 

regional transportation plans. Using illustrative case 

studies, this primer provides detailed information on 

how congestion pricing can support various regional 

planning goals and effective approaches for addressing 

the challenges of advancing congestion pricing in a 

regional context. 

What Is “Congestion Pricing”?

Congestion pricing – sometimes called value pricing – is a way of harnessing the power of the market 

to reduce traffic congestion and/or maintain free flowing conditions on parts of the transportation 

system. Congestion pricing works by shifting travel (including purely discretionary rush hour highway 

travel as well as commuters with flexibility) to other transportation modes or to off-peak periods. 

By removing even 5 percent of the vehicles from a congested roadway, pricing enables the system to 

flow much more efficiently, allowing more cars to move through the same physical space. There is a 

consensus among economists that congestion pricing represents the single most viable and sustainable 

approach to reducing traffic congestion.

Source: Adapted from FHWA, Congestion Pricing, A Primer: Overview, FHWA-HOP-08-039, 

(Washington, DC: October 2008).
6 |

Based on the common agenda of the four congestion 

pricing workshops, this primer includes the following 

key themes around which the discussion and examples 

are centered. 

■ Building Public and Decisionmaker 

Acceptability: This involves addressing concerns 

about equity and fairness, revenue use, credibility 

of the agencies involved in implementation, privacy, 

and user perceptions about being charged to use 

roads already paid for through fuel taxes . Ensuring 

an early, ongoing, and broad engagement process 

involving planners, decision makers, stakeholders, 

and the public, while communicating the role 

of congestion pricing in solving severe regional 

problems is crucial. Including congestion pricing 

in a bundle of complementary strategies acceptable 

to a range of stakeholders, using data from existing 

projects and modeling studies, and implementing a 

short-term pilot program to prove the effectiveness 

of the strategy are other effective measures to build 

acceptability. Finding allies among decisionmakers 

and local leaders, and engaging experts and 

businesses also helps build broad-based support for 

a congestion pricing program.

■ Linking Congestion Pricing to Regional 

Goals and Objectives: The objectives of the planned 

congestion pricing program must be clearly linked 

to regional planning goals such as environmental 

sustainability and economic development and 

this understanding must be communicated to the 

public and to decisionmakers. This helps planners 

in developing pricing programs as part of a 

comprehensive approach to achieving regional goals. 

When pricing programs are implemented, ongoing 

monitoring and evaluation must ensure that the 

program is achieving previously identified goals, 

objectives and system performance targets.

■ Achieving Interagency Collaboration: This 

involves coming to an agreement between agencies 

and jurisdictions on how best to achieve regional 

goals and objectives, how to allocate the costs and 

revenues of a congestion pricing program, how to 

manage and operate the program, and how to work 

across cultural differences and silos between and 

within agencies. Early in the process, it is critical 

to establish regional partnerships that clearly 

identify regional roles and responsibilities, while 

drawing on the unique strengths of each agency. 

High level political leadership and support can also 

be important for achieving collaboration among 

agencies.

■ Analyzing Congestion Pricing Impacts as 

Part of the Planning Process: Analyzing the full 

regional or project-level traffic, economic, and social 

impacts of a congestion pricing program requires 

significant technical capability and data. Potential 

changes in travel behavior are often difficult to 

predict. However, the use of improved travel 

demand models and other tools has helped many 

regions analyze these impacts in a robust way at 

different stages of planning. In addition, the use of 

data based on observed impacts and pilot projects, 

collection of new data where needed, the use of costbenefit analysis and revenue estimation tools, as 

well as an early focus on analyzing potential equity 

impacts have proved to be effective practices in 

several regions.

■ Addressing Implementation Challenges 

and Sustaining User Support: Legislative barriers, 

such as the lack of authority to implement tolling 

on previously free facilities and limits on the use 

of revenues, have been a key challenge in many 

regions. Obtaining funding for pricing projects and 

limited user experience with the pricing concept and 

technology have also been common implementation 

challenges. Establishing a supportive policy 

framework for implementing regional pricing 

programs, involving the private sector, establishing 

conditions for revenue use, and managing how prices 

may be adjusted it he future have proved effective. 

In addition, ensuring that the user experience is 

seamless, creating opportunities for the public to 

test and become familiar with the technology, and 

developing ways to enforce occupancy requirements 

without burdening users are important for sustaining 

user support.

The discussion of these themes draws directly 

from practitioner experiences and effective strategies 

that were employed in planning and implementing 
E ffective A pproaches for A dvancing C ongestion P ricing in a M etropolitan R egion | 7

congestion pricing programs. This primer is designed 

for transportation planners at the State, regional, 

and local levels as well as for key stakeholders in the 

planning process, such as transit agency officials and 

decisionmakers involved in regional transportation 

planning and policy making. It is also meant to 

support the broader audience of stakeholders involved 

in all aspects of transportation and community 

decisionmaking, from elected officials and interested 

citizens to practitioners in related fields such as the 

environment and land use.

Process of Developing the Primer

As part of the Congestion Pricing Primer series, 

FHWA’s Office of Operations published “Congestion 

Pricing – A Primer: Metropolitan Planning 

Organization Case Studies” in 2011. Pricing programs 

have often come about separate from the traditional 

metropolitan planning process through pilot projects 

and demonstrations. Given that the federally funded 

pricing demonstration projects have shown congestion 

pricing to be an effective tool in addressing regional 

goals, there is a growing interest in incorporating such 

programs into metropolitan transportation plans.

The case studies examine how congestion pricing was 

incorporated into metropolitan transportation plans 

in four regions: Dallas/Fort Worth, the Puget Sound 

region, Minneapolis/St. Paul, and the San Francisco Bay 

area. The progression of congestion pricing through the 

planning process follows a unique path in each of these 

regions, based on each region’s own history of attitudes 

towards pricing, jurisdictional relationships, and politics 

that influence how pricing is perceived. The case studies 

thus offer valuable lessons to support other MPOs 

seeking to do the same.

This primer builds on those four case studies, 

drawing on discussions from a series of four peer-topeer practitioner workshops organized by FHWA. 

These one-day workshops were held in September 2011 

in Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, and Washington, DC and 

involved presentations and discussions about challenges 

and opportunities for advancing congestion pricing in 

a regional context. The objective of the workshops was 

to provide technical assistance to help transportation 

practitioners understand the technical, institutional, 

political, and public involvement issues associated 

with planning and implementing congestion pricing 

strategies to advance regional goals. Participants at the 

workshops included MPO planners, Federal and State 

DOT staff, and representatives from transit agencies, 

tolling authorities, and consulting firms. The content 

of this primer has been developed primarily from the 

discussions that took place at these workshops. 

The focus of the workshops was on the role of 

congestion pricing in supporting funding and regional 

goals and how to integrate pricing into metropolitan 

transportation plans. The workshops included sessions on 

lessons learned from experience with congestion pricing 

and metropolitan planning and included presentations 

and panel discussions by practitioners from different 

regions of the country who have implemented, planned, 

or conducted studies for congestion pricing programs. 

Through these sessions, workshop participants shared 

their perspectives and presenters provided insights 

from their experiences. This information forms the 

basis for this document and has been supplemented by 

a literature review, case studies of congestion pricing 

programs, and the results of the research on the impacts 

of these programs. 

Types of Congestion Pricing Strategies to 

Consider in Regional Planning

There are a variety of ways to use price signals to 

reduce congestion in the transportation network. This 

primer defines five types of congestion pricing strategies, 

each of which works slightly differently, and a number of 

which can be used in combination. For a pricing strategy 

to be considered congestion pricing, it must vary by 

time of day or level of congestion or reward the use of 

higher occupancy vehicles so as to impact traffic flow 

directly. Some forms of congestion pricing only charge on 

individual lanes or segments of the system, providing an 

option for faster travel time for those willing to pay.

Variably Priced Lanes

Variably priced lanes are separated lanes on a roadway 

that involve variable tolls. The amount paid depends on 

the level of congestion in the area or the time of day (this is 

usually linked to expected levels of congestion), and may 

also vary based on the number of occupants in the vehicle.
8 |

The two main types of priced lanes are express toll 

lanes and high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. Express 

toll lanes involve tolls that are set at a level to maintain 

a target speed or level of traffic flow. HOT lanes also 

consider the number of occupants in the vehicle, 

reducing or eliminating tolls for carpools, vanpools, 

or transit vehicles using the lane. Vehicles that do not 

meet the occupancy requirement may choose to use 

HOT lanes, but will have to pay a toll.

Lanes that were previously high occupancy vehicle 

(HOV) lanes can be converted to HOT lanes to allow 

vehicles not meeting the occupancy requirements to 

take advantage of the reduced travel time if they are 

willing to pay a higher toll. Transportation agencies 

can also choose to add express toll lanes or HOT lanes 

to existing highways. 

Variably Priced Highways, Bridges, or 

Tunnels

In this approach, rather than pricing one lane of 

a general use highway, the entire highway, bridge, or 

tunnel facility is priced with variable tolls. Some portions of the facility might have minimal or no tolls at 

off-peak times, with these tolls increasing significantly 

at peak periods. 

At present, no free roads within the United States have 

been fully converted to priced highways with all lanes 

tolled. However, new toll roads with variable pricing 

have been constructed (e.g., the Intercounty Connector 

in Maryland) and some bridges (e.g., bridges connecting 

New York City and New Jersey) have introduced 

variable pricing to help smooth the flow of traffic, 

allowing the road to move more vehicles per hour than 

it would under congested conditions. Under U.S. DOT’s 

Urban Partnership Agreement program, regional 

partners in the Seattle area – the Puget Sound Regional 

Council (PSRC), the Washington State Department 

of Transportation (WSDOT) and King County – have 

introduced new tolls on State Route 520, setting toll rates 

on the facility based on demand.

Priced Zones

A priced zone levies a charge 

on vehicles entering or driving 

within a particular area – usually 

a central business district (CBD). 

This can be used to reduce traffic within a CBD by shifting trips 

to other modes or encouraging 

carpooling. There are two main 

ways to design a priced zone:

1. Cordon pricing involves setting a fee for all vehicles 

entering a CBD. The fee can be fixed or can be variable 

by time of day, congestion levels, vehicle type, or 

occupancy, as with other types of congestion pricing 

(e.g., lowering fees for commercial delivery trucks 

during off-peak hours or charging more during events 

or other particularly congested periods). Once the 

vehicle crosses into the zone and has paid the fee, the 

vehicle may move freely within the cordoned area. 

2. Areawide pricing involves charging a vehicle a tripbased or distance-based fee (e.g., per mile) for driving 

within a designated area. This type of pricing charges 

drivers for how much they drive within a congestion 

pricing zone, not just for entering it. As with cordon 

pricing, the charge under area pricing may vary by time 

of day or vehicle characteristics. Although congestion 

reduction is often the primary objective, cities also 

seek to reduce emissions, noise, traffic accidents, and 

improve pedestrian access and enjoyment of public 

spaces and businesses.

Although cordon and areawide pricing approaches 

do not currently exist in any U.S. city, they have 

been proposed in New York City, Los Angeles, and 

San Francisco and have been implemented in cities 

internationally. 

 Examples of Variably Priced Lanes

	 	 • State Route 91 in Orange County, California, began to price two lanes in 1995, with

 tolls varying by time of day, day of the week, and direction. Tolls can range from 

 $1.20 to $10.00.

	 	 • The I-30 corridor in Dallas has two reversible express lanes allowing single

 occupancy vehicles (SOVs) to pay a fee and HOVs to pay up to 50 percent less than 

 the SOV rate, with tolls set dynamically based on congestion.
E ffective A pproaches for A dvancing C ongestion P ricing in a M etropolitan R egion | 9

Priced Road Networks

Pricing a road network can mean applying any of 

the strategies described above to a network of roadways, 

which may include freeways and arterials. This allows for 

the road network to be variably priced throughout the day, 

leading to a systemwide improvement in performance. 

Pricing a network of roadways minimizes diversion 

effects (e.g., increased traffic on arterials from travelers 

trying to avoid tolls on the freeways can be prevented by 

setting charges on both to achieve optimal traffic flow). 

By pricing a larger number of facilities, a greater number 

of people are encouraged to change their travel behaviors. 

The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), the 

MPO for the Seattle region, studied the implications of 

a fully priced regional road network, and its long-range 

metropolitan transportation plan calls for full highway 

system tolling by approximately 2030. 

Pricing not Involving Tolls (e.g., Variable 

Parking Pricing, Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Fees)

Transportation facilities can be priced using other 

methods besides tolls to manage congestion and increase incentives to shift the time of travel or mode 

used. Parking pricing can be implemented so that 

parking in congested areas at peak times is more costly, 

which increases the incentive to take alternative forms 

of transportation and frees up parking spots for those 

who are willing to pay, thereby reducing time (and 

driving) required to find a spot. Rates can also change 

based on length of time (e.g., charging by the minute 

or quarter hour, or increasing 

rates after the first hour) to encourage people to stay for shorter periods. For instance, SFPark 

in San Francisco is a program 

that aims to reduce congestion from cruising for parking 

by providing users with realtime information about parking availability both through 

a website as well as through 

smartphone applications and adjusting parking prices 

based on demand. Pricing based on vehicle miles traveled (or VMT-based fees) can involve a fee levied on a 

per-mile basis that can vary by location, time or day, or 

congestion levels. For instance, the State of Oregon has 

studied the application of mileage-based fees through 

a pilot project and tested technologies that allow higher rates within a designated congestion zone or when 

driving during peak-periods.1

Organization of the Primer

This section described the common types of 

congestion pricing strategies that may be considered at 

the regional level along with examples of each, where 

available. Section 2 describes how each of the above 

types of congestion pricing strategies can be applied to 

support and advance planning goals in a region. 

Following that, Section 3 addresses the important 

challenges related to planning and implementing 

congestion pricing and discusses public and 

decisionmaker acceptability, achieving regional 

collaboration, analytical limitations, legislative barriers, 

as well as a variety of other challenges discussed at the 

four workshops. 

Section 4 provides potential solutions to these 

challenges using case examples from regions that have 

implemented them, with a focus on effective approaches 

for integrating congestion pricing into metropolitan 

transportation plans. 

Section 5 provides insights on steps for getting started 

with advancing congestion pricing in regional plans and 

programs, which may be helpful for regions that want to 

get started in considering congestion pricing in a regional 

context. 

The Resources section lists useful Federal, State, and 

local technical studies and guidance documents for 

further reference.

Examples of Priced Zones

•	 Stockholm has a cordon around the city center with charges to enter and leave the zone. In the initial

trial period, there was a 22 percent drop in vehicle trips and bus ridership rose 9 percent.

•	 London’s congestion pricing scheme charges £8 (about $12) to enter the central business district

between 7 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., with exemptions for motorcycles, taxis, the disabled, alternative fuel 

vehicles, buses, and emergency vehicles. However, the fee does not vary based on congestion or time of 

day. Congestion reduced by 30 percent consistently in the first two years after implementation.

Source: TRB Report 686, “Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development,” Transportation 

Research Board, 2011.
10 |

2. Benefits from Using Congestion Pricing to 

 Support Regional Goals

Congestion pricing strategies can support regional goals 

by providing two direct benefits: improving multimodal 

system performance and generating revenues for 

transportation investments. These impacts, in turn, 

provide the opportunity to support multiple planning 

goals, including improving economic competitiveness; 

supporting environmental quality (e.g., air quality), 

energy efficiency, and sustainability (e.g., reducing 

fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions); 

enhancing travel options and livability; and supporting 

a state of good repair for infrastructure.

Improving Multimodal Transportation 

System Performance

Traffic congestion in urban areas, at ports, and other 

areas (e.g., beach vacation destinations, special event locations), creates travel delays that lead to real economic 

costs for regions, decreased reliability, and increased 

pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions, in turn leading to public health impacts. Many people feel the effects of congestion, including vehicle occupants and 

transit riders who must endure time stuck in traffic and 

businesses that are impacted due to congestion-related 

delays affecting their distribution of goods.

Congestion pricing can potentially improve the performance of the transportation system across modes in 

the following ways:

■ Managing Traffic Congestion. Congestion 

pricing can be an effective tool to manage travel 

demand. By pricing travel to more accurately 

account for its full costs, congestion pricing provides 

incentives for travelers to shift some trips to offpeak times, less-congested 

routes, or alternative modes; 

to combine trips; or even 

to eliminate some trips 

altogether. Pricing, therefore, 

can prevent a breakdown 

of traffic flow and help 

maintain vehicle throughput 

during peak periods.

■ Providing a Faster, More 

Reliable Travel Time 

Option. Some pricing 

options, such as managed 

lanes with congestion 

pricing, can help to guarantee 

a faster, more reliable travel 

time for those who pay to 

use the priced lanes, and can 

result in improved transit onSpeed and Travel Time Improvements Resulting from Different Forms of Congestion Pricing

■ High-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes: Evaluations of HOT lanes on I-15 in San Diego and Katy Freeway 

in Houston show 11-20 minute travel time savings for HOT lane users. The variably priced Miami I-95

Express Lanes have improved speeds not only for express lane users but also for those in the general use 

lanes.

■ Variable pricing based on time of day or congestion levels: An off-peak toll discount program in 

Lee County, Florida showed that 71 percent of drivers shifted their time of travel at least once a week to 

take advantage of the off-peak discounts. When the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey began 

charging variable tolls based on time of day on its bridges and tunnels, time savings of up to 20 minutes 

were observed at certain locations. 

■ Cordon pricing in London, Stockholm, and Singapore: Compared to pre-charging levels, the number 

of vehicles entering the charging zone dropped by 24 percent after the implementation of electronic 

congestion pricing in Singapore, by 14 percent after pricing was introduced in the western part of London, 

and by 20 percent in Stockholm. Average travel speeds increased by 28-30 percent in both Singapore and

London. 

Source: TRB Report 686, “Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development,” 

Transportation Research Board, 2011.
E ffective A pproaches for A dvancing C ongestion P ricing in a M etropolitan R egion | 11

time performance. By converting an under-utilized 

HOV lane to a HOT lane that attracts increased 

traffic volumes, traffic on the general use lanes may 

also be improved. Conversely, converting an overutilized HOV lane to a HOT lane may disincentivize 

its use, smoothing traffic on the managed lanes 

segment of the roadway.

Evaluation results from implemented projects 

show how different types of 

congestion pricing strategies 

can improve transportation 

system performance and 

provide additional travel 

options. Even a small reduction 

in traffic may significantly 

improve system performance 

and reliability for transit 

and personal motor vehicles, 

as shown in the examples 

highlighted throughout the 

remainder of this section.

Generating Revenues for Transportation 

Investments

It is widely recognized that one of the greatest 

challenges in the coming years will be preserving, 

operating, and enhancing the Nation’s transportation 

system in an era of limited funding, expanding needs, 

and increasing costs. Increasingly, there is recognition 

that traditional fuel taxes are inadequate to meet 

revenue needs because tax rates have not kept pace 

with inflation, improvements in vehicle fuel economy 

are diminishing their value, and investment needs 

continue to grow.

Congestion pricing is a potential funding source for 

highway infrastructure improvements and for on-going 

highway maintenance, operations, and management, 

transit services, and other related investments. For 

instance, excess revenues remaining from funding 

operating costs of HOT lane projects in Miami, San 

Diego, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles are being used 

to fund transit improvements, ridesharing programs, 

traffic management using ITS, or travel demand 

management programs in the HOT lane corridors. 

The State of Washington expects the recently 

implemented variable pricing on the SR 520 bridge 

connecting Seattle to Redmond to contribute funds 

toward constructing the new bridge. Revenues from 

the pricing will be combined with traditional Federal 

and State funds. Revenues from cordon pricing in 

London, Singapore, and Stockholm have been used in 

part to fund regional transit improvements in each of 

these cities.

Apart from the ability to raise revenues directly, 

congestion pricing also offers the opportunity to 

involve the private sector in financing the capital 

costs of new lanes/facilities because of the potential 

to generate returns. For example, managed lanes on 

I-635 (LBJ Freeway) and North Tarrant Express in 

Dallas and Fort Worth are being constructed with 

60-70 percent private sector funding. In Virginia, a 

private sector consortium has entered into a publicprivate partnership with the Commonwealth of 

Virginia to build four new HOT lanes on the Capital 

Beltway, funding about 60 percent of project costs 

through private equity, loans, and bonds that will be 

paid for by the tolls levied on motorists who choose to 

use the new HOT lanes.

The extent to which the revenues from congestion 

pricing can support transportation needs on a regional 

level will depend on the scale and type of proposed 

pricing projects. Regional or broad-based pricing, 

such as regional networks of priced facilities proposed 

in the San Francisco Bay and Puget Sound areas 

will be more suited for this purpose than individual 

projects like a single HOT lane. Some MPOs that 

are including pricing strategies in their metropolitan 

Using Congestion Pricing to Support Long Range Funding Needs in the Seattle Region 

PSRC has included congestion pricing as a key element of its Transportation 2040 Plan with a 

financing plan that suggests a long-term shift in how transportation improvements are funded, with 

greater reliance on congestion pricing. 

The plan states that over time, sources of transportation funding in the region could include highoccupancy toll (HOT) lanes, facility and bridge tolls, highway system tolls, charges for vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT), and other pricing approaches that replace the gas tax while funding and managing 

the transportation system. The plan calls for full highway system tolls by approximately 2030.
12 |

transportation plans to meet transportation investment 

needs include the North Central Texas Council of 

Governments (NCTCOG) for the Dallas region, the 

Puget Sound Regional Council for the Seattle region, 

the Metropolitan Council for the Minneapolis/St. Paul 

Twin Cities region, and the New York Metropolitan 

Transportation Council (NYMTC) for the New York 

region.

Supporting Economic Competitiveness / 

Freight Movement

Congestion pricing can lead to improved economic 

competitiveness by supporting reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, 

services, and other basic worker needs as well as improved business access to markets. It may also reduce 

the economic costs of congestion-related delays, which, 

according to the Texas Transportation Institute’s 2010 

Annual Urban Mobility Report, stood at $115 billion in 

the form of 4.8 billion lost hours and 3.9 billion gallons

of wasted fuel nationwide. 

Congestion affects the productivity of not only 

workers, but also businesses, who are constrained 

by time-bound schedules for the delivery of goods. 

These effects are critical in industries that rely on 

time-sensitive shipments or those that rely on freight 

movement as a significant portion of their supply 

chain costs. Congestion and reduced reliability on the 

transportation network therefore affect the accessibility, 

operations, productivity, and competitiveness of the 

Nation’s businesses across virtually all economic 

sectors. Giving motorists the option to pay for a 

congestion-free ride provides greater choice for 

travelers and reduces the overall costs of congestion by 

allowing high-value and time-sensitive trips to occur 

with faster travel times than trips where travel time is 

of less importance. In addition, it maximizes economic 

return on existing investment by optimizing use of the 

transportation infrastructure.

 Linking Congestion Pricing to Economic Development in Los Angeles

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has linked its congestion pricing proposals to an 

economic development strategy for the region. Its analysis shows that an annual delay of 10 percent leads to a 

decrease in employment and gross regional product. With the adoption of the last regional transportation plan 

in 2008, the MPO Board approved an extensive study of congestion pricing options that can be integrated into

the plan, called the Travel Choices Study. The key goals of the study are to increase productivity, improve air 

quality, increase revenues to meet shortfalls in funding, and to reduce congestion as an economic development 

strategy. 

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
E ffective A pproaches for A dvancing C ongestion P ricing in a M etropolitan R egion | 13

Supporting Environmental Quality, 

Energy Efficiency, and Sustainability

Motor vehicles are a significant cause of air pollution that harm human health, including carbon 

monoxide, particulate matter, and ozone precursors 

(hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides), as well as carbon 

dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that contribute to climate change. Moreover, areas with current 

or past air quality problems must demonstrate through 

the transportation conformity process that their longrange plans do not impede the ability to attain or maintain air quality standards. Congestion pricing strategies can support environmental quality through both 

reduced fuel consumption and decreased pollution and 

greenhouse gas emissions, as explained below.

■ Reducing VMT. By charging a price for road use, 

pricing can encourage road users to take transit, 

walk, bike, carpool, or telework rather than driving 

alone during peak periods. This would result in a 

reduction in VMT, emissions, and fuel consumption.

■ Improving traffic flow. Traffic congestion can lead 

to increased emissions due to excessive starts, stops, 

and idling. By improving traffic flow, congestion 

pricing can help to improve localized and regional 

air quality. For instance, an emissions analysis for the 

planned San Francisco Bay Area HOT lane network 

showed a 10 percent reduction in particulate matter 

emissions and 7 percent reduction in carbon dioxide 

emissions compared to the existing HOV networks.

■ Providing funding to support transit and other 

options. Road and parking pricing revenues can be 

used to support improvements in transit services, 

bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, or other 

options, which in turn can reduce automobile-based 

travel. 

Enhancing Travel Options, Transit, 

Livability, and Sustainability

Livability in transportation is about improving 

quality of life by creating travel choices within more 

balanced multimodal transportation networks while 

supporting and enhancing communities. The concept of livability was given greater clarity and definition through the six livability principles established 

by the Sustainable Communities Partnership between 

the U.S. DOT, EPA, and HUD (see text box). The ways 

in which pricing enhances economic competitiveness 

have already been discussed above. Pricing can support 

livability in other ways as well by: 

■ Providing more transportation choices.

Congestion pricing can improve the speed and 

reliability of express bus services, making them more 

attractive to commuters while reducing operating 

costs, and can facilitate deployment of bus-rapidtransit (BRT) operations in major corridors (such as 

the US-36 Express Lanes project planned in Colorado). 

For example, the Miami I-95 Express Lanes were

created specifically to meet the goal of encouraging 

the use of transit and carpooling. Moreover, revenues 

from congestion pricing also can be used to enhance 

transit system capacity, ridesharing programs, and 

amenities for pedestrians and bicyclists.

 Indirectly, pricing strategies, including parking 

pricing, can make downtown or congested areas 

Potential Fuel Consumption Benefits of 

Managed Lanes

An analysis of express lanes in Southern 

California suggests that the lanes could improve 

vehicle fuel economy both in the express lanes 

(by lowering speeds compared to having them 

operate as HOV lanes) and in the general purpose 

lanes (by increasing speeds). 

Source: Metro ExpressLanes Concept of Operations, 

2009, LACMTA
14 |

more hospitable to pedestrians, bikers, and transit 

users by reducing vehicle travel. In London, when 

congestion pricing was first introduced in 2003, 

excess waiting times for buses decreased over 30 

percent, and bus speeds improved by 6 percent in 

the charging zone. This improvement, along with 

significant bus capacity enhancements, resulted in a 

37 percent increase in the number of bus passengers 

entering the charging zone after congestion charging 

was introduced.2 Moreover, by reducing downtown 

traffic congestion, cordon pricing can enhance 

the walkability of an area as well as its ability to 

accommodate bikes and transit vehicles.

■ Supporting existing communities. Pricing can 

help preserve existing communities by optimizing the 

efficient use of existing infrastructure and preventing 

or delaying the need for capacity building that could 

significantly alter community character. According to 

one study, building new highway infrastructure can 

lead to decentralization and increased sprawl, while 

management of existing infrastructure improves the 

vitality of existing communities.3

 Congestion pricing 

can also lead to a reduction in the number of traffic 

accidents, as occurred in London.4

Supporting a State of Good Repair

Congestion pricing generates funds that can be used 

to maintain existing infrastructure in a state of good 

repair. Because maintenance of existing transportation infrastructure is often a significant portion of total transportation funding needs, revenues generated 

from congestion pricing can help to support maintenance and preservation of existing transportation infrastructure.

Designing Congestion Pricing Strategies 

to Achieve Regional Benefits

The benefits of congestion pricing strategies and 

the extent to which they help support regional goals 

depend on both the type of pricing strategy and on 

how revenues are used. Different forms of congestion 

pricing will have different impacts and may be used to 

support different goals. For instance, construction of 

new highway capacity, even with variably priced toll 

roads, may not yield emissions reductions if it facilitates longer distance travel. However, options, such as 

pricing existing facilities and parking pricing are likely 

to result in more significant shifts in travel behaviors in 

ways that reduce vehicle travel and have emissions benefits. Targeted investments in managed lanes also may 

help to alleviate unnecessary delay and pollution. The 

benefits also depend in part on whether revenue from 

pricing is used to fund transit, bicycle, and pedestrian 

infrastructure or road improvements. For instance, 

the city of Austin, Texas, established a parking benefits 

district by metering on-street parking and dedicating 

the net revenues to infrastructure improvements in 

the neighborhood that promote walking, cycling, and 

transit use, such as sidewalk enhancements and the addition of bicycle lanes. 

By developing consensus on regional goals and objectives, regional congestion pricing strategies can be 

designed to help support these goals. For instance, 

in the Minneapolis/St. Paul region, congestion pricing was implemented initially both to achieve better 

utilization of HOV lanes by conversion to HOT lanes 

and to provide more options for travelers. In Southern 

California, a key goal for congestion pricing has been 

to reduce congestion in order to improve economic 

competitiveness. In the Seattle region, PSRC’s Transportation 2040 plan includes pricing on a regional level 

as part of an overall strategy to support sustainability 

and reduce greenhouse gas emissions while simultaneously addressing revenue needs. In the Dallas region, 

air quality improvement, congestion management, 

 The Partnership for Sustainable Communities Six 

 Livability Principles:

 1. Provide more transportation choices

 2. Promote equitable, affordable housing

 3. Enhance economic competitiveness

 4. Support existing communities

 5. Coordinate policies and leverage investment

 6. Value communities and neighborhoods

 Source: U.S. EPA, “HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable 

 Communities.” Available at http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/

 partnership/indexhtml
E ffective A pproaches for A dvancing C ongestion P ricing in a M etropolitan R egion | 15

and the need to raise funds for maintenance have all 

been key issues. Given growth in the Dallas region’s 

population and the limited funding available, the region has recognized that tolling is the most viable way 

to provide new capacity, leading to the development of 

public-private-partnerships (PPPs) to fund managed 

lane projects. The regional goals that were discussed 

at the workshops, for which congestion pricing is being 

considered in a wide range of regions, are listed in the 

Appendix (table 1).
16 |

To date, congestion pricing strategies have emerged 

primarily from planning around single projects, such as 

a new HOT lane project or toll road, rather than from a 

broader consideration of pricing as part of metropolitan 

long-range transportation plans. Although congestion 

pricing has the potential to support regional goals 

and is a more economically efficient way to manage 

transportation, planners face a number of challenges in 

considering congestion pricing at a regional level.

Achieving Public and Decisionmaker 

Acceptability for Congestion Pricing

Addressing public concerns and potentially negative attitudes toward congestion pricing is critical to 

successfully integrating congestion pricing into transportation planning and to implementing acceptable 

and lasting pricing programs. Although there have 

been several notable successes in implementing congestion pricing, the adoption of these strategies has 

been somewhat slow, in part due to political expectation of public opposition to paying a direct charge for 

using roads and the newness of the concept. Congestion pricing essentially calls for a paradigm change, but 

agencies planning and implementing these programs 

face challenges because of a range of concerns raised 

by decisionmakers, the public, and other stakeholders. 

These often include:

■ Equity and fairness concerns, particularly 

about adverse effects on low-income groups, 

local businesses, and jobs. Common equity issues 

include:

▶ Income equity issues, which arise from 

perceived disproportionate impacts on low-income 

people because congestion pricing charges represent 

a larger share of their income, thus limiting their use 

of priced facilities or tolled lanes. For this reason, 

express or HOT lanes have often been referred to as 

“Lexus Lanes.” Inflexibility of work schedules for 

some people who may be affected by pricing during 

peak commute hours is often a related issue. 

▶ Geographic equity concerns, which arise from 

a greater negative impact on people living/working 

in locations affected by a priced facility or zone as 

in area-wide and cordon-based pricing programs, 

and when tolls are imposed on a new, expanded, 

or existing facility in one part of a region but not 

on others. For instance, these may be concerns that 

pricing entry to downtown areas will negatively 

impact suburban residents. 

▶ Modal equity, which relates to concerns that 

converting HOV-only lanes to HOT lanes may create 

a disadvantage to transit as more single occupancy 

vehicles start using the lanes. This was a key concern 

with the I-394 HOT lanes in Minneapolis/St. Paul.

■ Concerns about how revenues will be used. The 

manner in which revenues are used plays a pivotal 

role in program acceptability, affecting both the 

actual and perceived equity of congestion pricing. 

Concerns may arise about the fair distribution of 

revenues among jurisdictions as well as the extent to 

which those who pay the fees benefit from the use of 

revenues. Congestion pricing is seen as a “revenue 

grab” in regions where there is no experience with 

tolling or congestion pricing programs. 

■ Mistrust of toll authorities and private sector 

involvement in collecting tolls. The public and 

decisionmakers often have doubts about how 

toll revenues will be used when independent toll 

authorities or the private sector collects revenues. In 

addition, the public is often concerned that private 

entities will raise the tolls as needed to achieve 

profitability without consideration of economic and 

social issues. 

3. Challenges Associated with Planning and 

Implementing Congestion Pricing
E ffective A pproaches for A dvancing C ongestion P ricing in a M etropolitan R egion | 17

■ Perceptions about “paying twice” for the use 

of roads. The public may perceive that congestion 

pricing means paying twice for the use of roads: 

once through fuel taxes and a second time through 

congestion charges. This perception may be 

significant particularly if only some highways are 

priced while others are free. 

■ Privacy issues. This relates to the perception that 

collecting data on traveler trips through transponders, 

cameras, or other means compromises privacy. 

Although privacy has been raised in opposition to 

congestion pricing schemes, it is typically not the 

primary issue of concern. 

Establishing Compatibility of Regional 

Goals with Congestion Pricing 

Objectives

Closely related to public acceptance issues is the lack 

of clear understanding by the public, decisionmakers, 

and planners about the role that pricing strategies play 

in supporting community goals. There is often limited 

understanding of how different types of congestion 

pricing strategies and projects are directly compatible 

with broad regional planning goals, such as economic 

development, environmental sustainability, and safety. 

Some challenges related to matching pricing strategies to regional goals include:

■ Contradicting views about the goals for a pricing program. This can occur because the coalition of 

stakeholders supporting pricing may differ from region to region. In some places, pricing may be driven by environmental advocates and citizens, while 

in others it may be motivated by business concerns 

about infrastructure and economic competitiveness. 

■ Making the connection between land-use and 

pricing. It is important to consider the relationship 

between pricing programs and regional land development patterns, which influence system demand 

in particular locations. Congestion pricing may be 

difficult to consider in areas with dispersed land use 

patterns that do not support transit since those who 

find the tolls to be too expensive may not have a viable alternative. 

■ Including freight as part of a congestion pricing strategy. Although most regional models show 

significant travel time savings and improvements in 

reliability, freight operators often do not believe there 

will be enough congestion reduction. Even though 

trucking and logistics firms typically have only a 

small portion of their costs represented by tolls, 

demonstrating the benefits to these users is often a 

key challenge.

Interagency Collaboration on Congestion 

Pricing Programs

Successful congestion pricing projects and integration of pricing into regional transportation plans 

requires consensus and collaboration among multiple 

agencies. Different agencies will typically have different 

areas of focus, including roadways, transit, toll roads, 

and the environment, and different interests in regard 

to revenue generation, congestion management, and 

transit funding and operations. Key challenges associated with interagency collaboration include:

■ Agreement on how to best achieve regional 

objectives. It may be difficult for agencies with 

different interests to agree on how congestion pricing 

can support regional goals. For instance, one of the 

objectives of a HOT lane network may be to use 

any limited excess revenues, if available,5

 to finance 

the construction of key bottleneck segments of the 

network. However, other regional objectives such as 

air quality improvement and support for transit can 

work at cross purposes to revenue generation. Transit 

agencies, air quality and smart growth advocates, and 

other constituencies typically advocate for free use or 

reduced tolls for certain vehicle classes such as transit 

buses, HOV, clean fuel, motorcycles. It may therefore 

be difficult to reach regional consensus that strikes a 

balance between competing goals and objectives.

■ Costs and revenue allocation. In an era of 

scarce funding for transportation, the allure of a 

“new” funding source such as roadway pricing is 

apparent. However, allocation of both the costs 

of constructing priced facilities and allocation of 

revenues among jurisdictions, constituencies, and 

modes (e.g., transit, roadways) can be contentious 

issues. Similar to a transit network, a network of 

HOT lanes can provide the user and the region 

with much greater benefits than the sum of the 

impacts of individual HOT lane projects. However, 

agencies often tend to look at the benefits and 

costs that would result from individual projects 

within their jurisdiction as opposed to the broader 

regional view.
18 |

■ Agreeing on how to manage and operate pricing 

systems. In many major metropolitan areas, tolling 

agencies have operated tolled facilities for many 

years and have established and operated most of the 

infrastructure required for roadway pricing facilities. 

DOTs and transit agencies are becoming increasingly 

interested and involved in such projects, but have 

less experience with tolling operations. In order to 

be most effective, these agencies need to be able to 

adjust operating policies and technology to adapt to 

the different business needs of pricing projects. For 

example, electronic toll collection technology used 

on a toll bridge may not be adequate for a HOT lane 

network where there are multiple access/egress points. 

Since the systems must be regionally interoperable, the 

agencies must agree upon compatible technology, yet 

achieving interoperability between new and existing 

tolling systems operated by different agencies and in 

different jurisdictions can be a challenge. Moreover, 

a regional HOT lane network must have some level 

of consistency in operating hours, tolling strategy, 

access/egress design, occupancy requirements and 

other policies in order to make their use relatively 

seamless to the driver. Pricing projects that cross 

State lines create additional challenges related to 

project management, operations, and revenue 

distribution due to different approaches followed in 

different States. 

■ Silos between and within agencies. Oftentimes, silos 

within agencies are a barrier to collaboration. Personnel 

working on highway improvements are typically only in 

charge of delivering those projects, creating challenges 

for a variably priced project involving transit and 

operational improvements in a multimodal strategy. 

Achieving agreements between MPOs, a State DOT, and 

transit agencies, all of which may have different goals 

and objectives, can be a challenge, and everyone needs 

to be on board with the effort very early on. 

There are also cultural differences that exist between 

and within agencies. MPOs and other local agencies (e.g., 

transit operators) sometimes work better together than 

MPOs and DOTs, while in other cases, DOTs and highway 

or tolling authorities work well together. Within DOTs, 

there is often a heavy focus on highway infrastructure, 

engineering planning, project development, whereas there 

is often a more limited focus on system management and 

operations. 

Analytical Challenges in Evaluating 

Impacts and Integrating Congestion 

Pricing into Regional Plans

As regions begin to consider congestion pricing at a 

broader level as part of transportation plans, there are a 

number of key issues that need to be addressed to integrate pricing more fully into metropolitan transportation planning. A key challenge is associated with limited modeling capability to analyze congestion pricing 

impacts accurately. Long-range planning conducted 

by MPOs relies on travel demand forecasting models, which typically are not well suited to addressing 

congestion pricing, particularly dynamic pricing approaches where prices vary in real-time based on levels of congestion. This raises challenges in accurately 

forecasting travel impacts and impacts on emissions 

for air quality conformity analyses. Forecasting revenues reliably is another important issue for successful 

project implementation, particularly in projects involving public-private partnerships. In terms of prioritizing projects for funding, existing project selection processes are not designed to “score” congestion pricing 

projects and programs with respect to attaining various goals. 

Specific analytical challenges include:

■ Technical capability: Modeling to analyze 

congestion pricing programs is complex, with several 

inherent uncertainties such as how to incorporate 

changes in travel times and how to predict longterm travel behavior for passengers and freight. 

Many agencies typically use standard four-step 

travel demand models, which cannot capture the 

full effects of pricing programs. The impacts on land 

use and economic development, as well as potential 

secondary impacts, are also not typically captured. In 

many regions, freight is a very important factor (e.g., 

Chicago), but the models do not accurately capture 

the impacts of congestion pricing on freight traffic. 

Impacts on speeds are also sometimes not captured 

in regional models. Agencies often do not have the 

staff expertise, modeling capability, or the time to 

focus on developing new analytical techniques. 

■ Uncertainties in expected travel behavior 

changes and elasticities: Even for agencies that use 

sophisticated activity-based models, analysis for 

congestion pricing requires going into relatively new 

and unfamiliar territory regarding price elasticities 

and possible diversion onto other roads. For 
E ffective A pproaches for A dvancing C ongestion P ricing in a M etropolitan R egion | 19

example, in analyzing the cordon-based congestion 

pricing proposal for New York City, moving from no 

charge to a $8 congestion charge would imply changes

in travel behaviors that have never been seen, leading 

to uncertainties in the values of price elasticities to use. 

Typically, stated preference surveys where people report 

how they would behave in hypothetical circumstances 

(e.g., if a congestion charge were implemented in the 

future) are used to calibrate travel demand models. 

But this is not an indicator of how people will actually 

behave once the program is implemented. In London, 

for example, higher than expected levels of congestion 

reduction resulted than the models had shown, leading 

to lower revenues than anticipated.

■ Conducting robust equity analysis: In planning for 

maximum acceptability as well as moving a congestion 

pricing project along towards the environmental review 

process, important equity and environmental justice 

issues typically must be analyzed. Detailed data on 

user costs and travel patterns for different segments 

of the population may be required, and this can cause 

challenges. For instance, in New York City, the potential 

geographic impacts of the congestion pricing proposal 

could be analyzed, but income equity impacts were 

not captured well enough to support the regional 

plan. Longer-term data collected through longitudinal 

surveys would be required to determine how travel 

behaviors change. 

■ Collecting detailed data and conducting analysis 

required to understand local impacts: Moving from 

broad, regionally scaled scenario analyses to detailed 

project level analysis requires even more data and 

technical capability. For example, it is difficult to 

document the impact of diversion to streets just outside 

a pricing cordon or parking impacts in areas on the 

periphery of the cordon. Even if regional models can 

handle the issue of traffic diversion between facilities, 

accounting for shifting travel between time periods is 

a challenge. Overall, the assumptions for aggregated 

behavior do not capture the disaggregated decisions 

individuals make. Detailed analysis at the local level is 

essential for an environmental impact review, as seen in 

Seattle, Dallas, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. 

Legislative Barriers and Other 

Implementation Challenges

In addition to the challenges noted above, there are a 

number of other challenges MPOs and State DOTs may 

face with regard to planning and implementing congestion pricing, including:

■ Lack of authority to implement pricing on 

previously free or federally funded facilities: Any 

State seeking authority to implement pricing on free 

or federally funded facilities must request it by project 

from the FHWA. Many regions are constrained by 

State or regional legislation that in some way limits how 

revenues may be used (e.g., revenues spent within the 

same corridor where they were generated) or which 

areas may be tolled (e.g., restricting the ability to convert 

general purpose lanes or to switch from HOV 2 to HOV 

3 occupancies). The California State legislature prohibits 

changing the minimum occupancy requirements on 

existing HOV lanes when they are converted to priced 

lanes (e.g., in L.A.), while other States like Georgia 

prohibit conversion of general purpose lanes to HOT 

lanes (e.g., in Atlanta). 

■ Limited public and private funding: In economically 

uncertain times, regions face a lack of public funds for 

new pricing projects, and the private sector involvement 

in public private partnerships may be limited. Further, 

interest in job creation leads public entities to focus 

on capacity improvements as opposed to managing 

existing capacity through the use of congestion pricing. 

■ User experience and unfamiliarity with different 

requirements: Users may be confused when pricing 

strategies differ on different corridors in the region. 

For example, some corridors allow vehicles with three 

or more occupants (HOV 3+) to travel free on HOT 

lanes, while others allow vehicles with two or more 

occupants (HOV 2+) to travel free on priced lanes. In 

Dallas, efforts are currently underway to work with 

policy makers to change the minimum occupancy 

requirement for driving free on managed lanes from 

HOV 2+ to HOV 3+ while maintaining user support. 

This is a challenge because some HOV 2+ drivers who 

previously drove free on the lanes would be required to 

start paying tolls under the modified policy.

■ Technology issues: Specific challenges include public 

perception of the technology, how it works, where it 

intrudes or doesn’t, and interoperability of technology. A 

region needs to have good technological infrastructure 

in place to be able to implement pricing programs, and 

this challenges regions that do not currently have ITS or 

tolling in place. 
20 |

4. Effective Practices for Integrating Congestion 

 Pricing Into Metropolitan Transportation Plans

This section highlights effective practices and lessons 

learned for advancing planning for and implementing 

congestion pricing in a regional context.

Gaining Acceptance from 

Decisionmakers and the Public 

Successful congestion pricing programs hinge upon 

gaining acceptance from elected officials and the public. Achieving acceptability requires effective communication with elected officials, travelers, residents, 

businesses and other stakeholders likely to influence 

decisionmakers. It also requires understanding and 

taking public acceptability concerns into account in 

the design of programs.

Some lessons learned from regional experiences 

with congestion pricing and tips from practitioners 

include the following:

Listen to public concerns and goals in the design 

of congestion pricing proposals. Communication 

should not be viewed simply as a matter of conveying 

pricing concepts to “sell” the concept or counter 

misconceptions; rather it should be considered one part 

of a broader engagement process between planners, 

public officials, decisionmakers, affected parties, and 

stakeholders active in the development of proposals 

that package pricing with multimodal investment and 

land-use policies. For instance, income equity impacts 

depend on how pricing programs are structured (e.g., 

how revenues are distributed and how non-toll driving 

options or other alternatives are enhanced). Thus, 

an open, responsive, and committed process should 

begin to incorporate these considerations in early 

planning and to persist through adoption and on to 

implementation and operation. It may be necessary to 

adjust program features 

and plans to address 

public reservations; 

e.g., in Minneapolis, 

proposed toll rates 

and time periods were 

altered in response 

to widespread public 

concern.

Communicate the 

role of congestion 

pricing in addressing 

critical problems. 

Public acceptance can 

be improved by directly 

tying the objectives of 

the congestion pricing 

 Understanding Public Acceptability

 In the Washington, DC region, to manage high levels of congestion, a number of congestion 

 pricing projects are currently under development, including HOT lanes in Virginia, a project 

 that has been in operation for a little more than 6 months. In addition, the Metropolitan 

 Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) is conducting a public acceptability study for 

 three future pricing scenarios:

 1. A variably priced Mileage Based User Fee (MBUF); 

 2. A variable toll on existing capacity; and 

 3. A cordon charge. 

 The MPO is focusing on strategy bundles that combine pricing with other measures not only to 

 reduce congestion and increase reliability but also to raise revenues and improve quality of life.

 Source: Presentation by John Swanson, MWCOG, at FHWA Congestion Pricing Workshop, 

 Washington, DC, September 15, 2011.
E ffective A pproaches for A dvancing C ongestion P ricing in a M etropolitan R egion | 21

program to addressing a severe regional problem 

such as a funding crisis, severe congestion problems, 

or sustainability concerns, as a potential long-term 

solution. Communications should be explicit about the 

benefits (e.g., improvements in transit, time, mobility, 

and travel choices) and the value proposition for 

different stakeholder groups. 

If possible, for managed lane 

networks, provide guarantees 

for travel times or speeds so 

that travelers perceive the 

benefit they are paying for and 

understand that the lanes offer 

an additional travel choice. 

Include congestion pricing 

in a bundle of strategies aimed 

at meeting regional goals. 

Acceptability of congestion 

pricing can be enhanced 

by bundling it with other 

strategies, such as increased 

transit service. Some areas have 

found it beneficial to invest the 

net revenues from the congestion pricing program in 

transit and make the case that the transit operations 

on the facility can be improved along with improving 

congestion. If some revenues are dedicated to transit, 

some equity concerns can also be mitigated.

Address equity and fairness concerns directly. 

Given the very real concerns about the equity impacts 

of congestion pricing, explore these issues using data 

to help inform the discussions. In addition, directly 

address these concerns through program design; for 

example:

■ Showing data on how sales taxes and gas taxes can 

be more regressive than congestion pricing. 

■ Providing multimodal alternatives through 

improved transit service or incentives to carpool/

telecommute. For instance, in the Dallas region, 

transit buses run free on managed lanes and the 

MPO reimburses vanpools that use the managed 

lanes.

■ Offering tolling discounts. For instance, In 

the San Francisco Bay Area, the Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission (MTC) offers toll 

discounts to low-income travelers. In response to 

concerns about equity in Minneapolis/St. Paul, toll 

rates were lowered and half of the revenues were 

directed toward transit enhancements.

To address concerns about geographic equity, 

strategies may include:

■ Adopting a regional approach to pricing and 

returning revenues to jurisdictions or corridors 

where revenues are collected.

■ Using revenues to benefit those who pay, such 

as through supporting highway maintenance, 

implementation of road improvements, or 

improving public transportation in the corridor.

 Attempt short-term pilot and demonstration projects. 

Planning, getting support, and implementing congestion 

pricing can take a long time and proceeds incrementally. 

However, incremental implementation can help to prepare 

constituents for subsequent phases of pricing.

Introducing congestion pricing to the public as a pilot 

program can be a success factor for acceptability, as in Los 

Angeles, where L.A. Metro will complete a pilot run of the 

Express Lanes and report results to the State legislature 

after one year of implementation. 

Demonstrating Value to the Traveling Public

In the Twin Cities region, planners demonstrated that over the next 20 years, the region could build 

2-3 large, costly projects and bring a small amount of localized benefit or could build many smaller, 

geographically dispersed projects with lower cost/higher benefit. This message resonated, especially 

when the public could see the potential benefits in their neighborhoods. Consequently, the region 

has 300 miles of bus-only shoulders as part of an overall strategy for managing and operating 

infrastructure.

The primary focus of congestion pricing in the Twin Cities is congestion and demand management, 

and pricing has been presented as an additional option for travelers. To maximize benefits while 

reducing costs, the region uses a Flexible Highway Strategy to maximize the use of existing space 

without purchasing additional Right of Way (ROW). This approach has garnered support from land 

use, transit, and livability advocates.

Source: “New Highway Approach: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area,” Presentation by Carl Ohrn, 

Metropolitan Council, at FHWA Congestion Pricing Workshop, September 13, 2011.
22 |

Allowing users to try out a new system during a 

pilot project can help them become more familiar and 

comfortable with a congestion pricing system and reduce 

opposition to future expansion. Data from short-term 

or pilot projects can also be important for combating 

misperceptions and generating support for broader 

implementation. As an example, on managed lane 

projects in the Dallas region, the Texas DOT provides 

“Project Tracker” updates on their website on a quarterly 

basis and one-page information sheets on system 

 Mitigating Equity Impacts 

 L.A. Metro analyzed mode shares by income segment with the help of experts at University 

 of California at Los Angeles and the Environmental Defense Fund and found that the bulk of 

 low-income travelers were already on transit. Funding transit with toll revenues is therefore a 

 way to mitigate equity impacts. On both the I-10 and I-110 projects:

	 	 • Tolls are funding BRT station improvements and transit signal priority in downtown

 L.A. after buses get off express lanes. 

	 	 • Toll credits will be provided to frequent transit riders. 

	 	 • L.A. Metro provided a one-time $25 toll credit to purchase a required transponder to avoid

 the burden on low income people.

 Source: “Metro Express Lanes,” Presentation by Stephanie Wiggins, Los Angeles Metropolitan 

 Transportation Authority, at FHWA Congestion Pricing Workshop, September 15, 2011.

performance that decisionmakers and stakeholders can 

use to understand project results. In areas with existing 

toll facilities, public perception of the performance of 

these facilities also significantly influences acceptance 

for the future, so managing and operating these 

systems effectively is 

important for future 

expansion.

In the Seattle

region, all 

alternatives that 

were analyzed for 

the regional plan 

would use some 

form of pricing. 

The regional plan 

calls for a phased 

approach, beginning 

with HOT lanes. 

The MPO aims 

to demonstrate 

success, build 

revenues and public acceptability, and then toll the full 

highway network based on dynamic pricing. 

Present data on potential impacts from modeling 

studies and performance evaluations of existing 

priced facilities. Using data is important to address 

equity concerns and 

refute misperceptions 

of impacts. Public 

opinion can change with 

information, as seen in 

San Francisco, where 

data helped to shape 

public opinion (see text 

box example). Polls in 

San Diego, Los Angeles 

and Minneapolis/St. 

Paul showed support for 

pricing proposals either 

was higher among low 

income respondents or 

unrelated to income, 

and this “real world” 

information can help 

 Demonstrating Value Across a Region 

 Create an expenditure plan that shows benefits for suburbs, central cities, roads, and transit 

 agencies. This is needed to ensure that all partners are brought to the table and see value in 

 the plan. This approach was followed in San Francisco, where a congestion pricing program 

	 	 was estimated to generate $60 to $80 million per year. The Metropolitan Transportation

 Commission (MTC) identified a range of immediate improvements for reinvestment 

 of funds, including BRT in key corridors, signal priority and peak period bus-only lanes, bike 

 lanes in San Francisco, and regional improvements including Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) 

 station way-finding, access improvements, Caltrans station access improvements, and U.S. Rte 

 101 corridor management. In addition, on-going benefits, including more frequent rapid/ 

 express transit services, street paving/pothole repair, traffic calming, and streetscape 

 improvements were identified. 

 Source: “Bay Area Regional Express Lanes Network: Understanding the Opportunities and 

 Challenges of Pricing Strategies,” Presentation by David Vautin, Metropolitan Transportation 

 Commission, FHWA Congestion Pricing Workshop, September 13, 2011.
E ffective A pproaches for A dvancing C ongestion P ricing in a M etropolitan R egion | 23

to address public concerns about income equity.6 

Results from implemented projects demonstrating 

actual benefits also can also be effective in providing 

information to the public.

Involve decisionmakers from all groups. Finding 

allies or advocates among decisionmakers can help 

to build support for congestion pricing programs. 

Take advantage of the Federal grant programs and 

partnership agreements available for planning and 

implementing pricing as this has significantly helped 

achieve decisionmaker buy-in in several regions. Even in 

areas that did not receive funding, the act of preparing to 

apply for the grant helped stakeholders to come together 

and reduced opposition from decisionmakers. Bring the 

opposition into the process and make it a bipartisan or 

non-partisan effort. Develop political champions who 

can speak on behalf of the initiative to the media and 

help get other peers on board. Experience from Los 

Angeles shows that it is important not to be led only 

by decisionmakers in planning the program, but also 

to be led by communities, and communities are more 

interested in transit investments.

Conduct early and ongoing outreach and 

communication. Study the issue in focus groups 

and workshops, engage the public through forums, 

and provide good information to explain the concept 

to people using messages that resonate with them. 

Remind people that prices are more than money; 

prices are information that help people make decisions. 

People are currently making decisions based on the 

misinformation that it is free to drive and park in 

congested conditions, whereas they are already paying 

for congestion in other ways. Tailor messages carefully 

to the interests of stakeholder groups, but avoid being 

contradictory.

Include local community 

leaders in project task forces. 

Community support is important 

to move a pricing project forward. 

In Dallas, the argument was made 

to communities that if a toll road 

In the Seattle and Minneapolis/St. Paul regions, attempts to build acceptance focused heavily 

on elected officials. The strategy was to build high-level support so that the officials could in 

turn advocate congestion pricing programs to their constituents. This was been called the 

“grasstops” approach in the Twin Cities. After failed attempts at gaining approval for congestion 

pricing, a marketing consultant was hired and a value pricing task force was established. This 

strategy targeted community and political leaders, who could then build more grassroots 

support. 

Using Data to Build Support

In San Francisco, through the Mobility, Access, 

and Pricing Study, the San Francisco County 

Transportation Authority (SFCTA) was able to 

collect valuable data and conduct analyses that 

helped to change public opinion significantly in 

favor of the congestion pricing proposals. For 

instance, for the cordon pricing plan, analysis 

showed that many low-income people would 

not be impacted, and discounts were planned 

for those who would be. Data also helped to 

reduce concerns about geographic equity raised 

by elected officials and showed that how people 

valued their own time did not match with 

planners’ perceptions that the value of time 

correlated with income levels. 

Regional Opinion (non-SF) Pre-Presentation

(n=250)

Regional (non-SF) Opinion Post-Presentation

(n=250)
24 |

was built in that community, the revenues will be spent 

for local improvements. In Los Angeles, net toll revenue 

has to be invested back into the corridor in which 

it was generated, and this policy has helped obtain 

support from local governments. In the Minneapolis/

St. Paul region, too, the State legislature requires 

revenues to remain in the corridor. These are ways in 

which community support can be built. In addition, 

having community leaders participate in project 

planning alongside elected officials, transportation 

practitioners, and technical experts or academics by 

establishing task forces or committees has proven to be 

a useful strategy in Los Angeles and the Minneapolis/

St. Paul region. Such task forces must be set up before 

commencing any analysis, and the process should be 

kept transparent to all stakeholders.

Engage trusted experts. Bringing in outside 

experts to present the benefits of congestion pricing, 

such as from among the university community or from 

regions where pricing programs have been successfully 

 

 In the Minneapolis/St. Paul region, the Minnesota DOT set up a Community Task Force at the 

 start of project planning with staff from the MPO, members from the Humphrey Institute at the 

 University of Minnesota, and representatives from six city councils, citizens, State legislators, 

 AAA, trucking association, and transit-oriented groups.

implemented, is a useful strategy to increase public and 

decisionmaker acceptance. In Minneapolis-St Paul, 

elected officials were brought in to talk with other 

elected officials and in 

public forums. 

Engage the private 

and non-government 

sectors. Bringing 

businesses on board to 

support a congestion 

pricing project at the early 

stages and educating them about planning processes 

can be important. In many regions, congestion has real 

costs for businesses in terms of time and productivity. 

For example, this is a key problem in Southern 

California; Chicago; Washington, DC; and New York. 

Using economic development and competitiveness as 

key regional goals, the private sector can be engaged 

not just through public-private partnerships on pricing 

projects but also as planning partners along with 

universities and other stakeholders. 

In New York City, the NGO and environmental 

advocacy sectors, along with businesses, worked with 

the city in a valuable public-private coalition that came 

about as a result of the pricing proposal. In fact, it was 

a business group (Partnership for New York City) that 

highlighted the regional costs of congestion, providing 

a key impetus for the congestion pricing proposal. 

In Dallas, the MPO has engaged private businesses 

and the Dallas-Fort 

Worth Airport, which 

speak directly to their 

constituents in support 

of the managed lanes 

projects. Similarly, 

recognizing the 

debilitating impacts 

of congestion in the 

Southern California 

region, key business 

leaders have offered 

to carry the MPO’s 

message to elected 

officials that pricing 

 

 In the Puget Sound region, a congruence of stakeholder interests occurred around varied 

 regional goals, all of which could be met by the large-scale regional pricing strategy adopted in 

 the current plan.

 ■ Environmental interests supported congestion reduction and reduction in 

 greenhouse gas emissions;

 ■ Businesses supported congestion reduction and increased reliability;

 ■ Highway lobby supported addition of new capacity and new revenue sources 

 because traditional sources are proving inadequate; 

 ■ Transportation engineers and planners supported the goal of congestion reduction; and

 ■ Economists supported the goal of preserving and enhancing economic vitality because 

 incorrect price signals create economic inefficiencies and loss.
E ffective A pproaches for A dvancing C ongestion P ricing in a M etropolitan R egion | 25

strategies need to be an important 

part of the transportation toolbox. 

In London, a key factor that led 

to the success of the congestion 

charging scheme was encouraging 

businesses to provide employees 

with incentives to use transit or 

carpools. All borough employees 

and bank employees in London 

were given incentives to encourage 

them to use alternative modes. It 

is important to include business 

representatives on MPO planning 

and policy boards to help respond 

to business interests and gain 

support. 

Linking Congestion Pricing to Regional 

Goals and Objectives

Linking the objectives of congestion pricing with 

the achievement of regional goals is important to the 

success of pricing efforts.

Ensure that congestion pricing supports key 

regional goals. In both Chicago and Seattle, the 

recently adopted regional plans for the year 2040 

include congestion pricing measures as a primary 

means of managing travel demand and raising 

revenues for transportation investment. In the Dallas 

region, NCTCOG similarly showed the huge shortfall 

in funding to build needed infrastructure; moreover, 

air quality is an additional important motivation. In 

the New York metro area, the need to maintain transit 

in a state of good repair is important, and in Atlanta 

and the Southern California region, maintaining 

economic competitiveness is an important objective 

that has helped to motivate consideration of congestion 

pricing. It is important to obtain regional consensus 

on these goals and program objectives. The regional 

benefits of congestion pricing programs can be 

enhanced by planning complementary measures. For 

example, in order to reduce congestion, the Urban 

Partnership Agreements emphasize “the 4Ts” – tolling, 

transit, technology, and telecommuting. While 

pricing may be viewed as a burden on travelers if 

Effective strategies to achieve acceptability outlined by practitioners at workshops:

• San Francisco: The webpage on “What we heard, what we did”; also, showing local control over 

expenditures of revenues is key – i.e. demonstrate that funding is not going into a black hole for 

transit. Show responsiveness to public/political concerns and ability to handle revenues responsibly.

• Los Angeles: A peer-reviewed assessment of equity analysis; it was important to people that the 

MPO set the tolls and used the funds as opposed to the revenues going to the State, which is almost 

bankrupt. The State legislature prohibited using private funding. 

• Dallas: The MPO technical committee setting a toll ceiling provided some level of comfort 

to the public and decisionmakers that there is someone watching and ensuring performance; 

also, credibility and distrust of government is an issue – both Federal and State governments are 

distrusted. Most of these facilities span many local jurisdictions, so it helped to show that the MPO 

will serve as a broad overseer.

■ Assurance that money will stay in the region.

enacted in isolation, when coupled with transit, 

technology to allow smooth toll collection and 

real-time transit information, and the ability to 

telecommute or otherwise reduce trips by carpooling 

and other means, pricing can play an important role 

in supporting travel choices, improving reliability, 

and reducing emissions.

Develop regional operations objectives and 

appropriate performance measures applicable to 

pricing strategies. In addition to analyzing projects 

in the plan, conducting ongoing monitoring and 

evaluation is important. The goals of a congestion 

pricing project should be established early in the project 

and be used to define the metrics of the evaluation 

program. For example, incorporating performance 

measures related to reliability, traffic congestion, 

availability of multimodal choices, revenue generation, 

and equity can help to raise consideration of pricing 

strategies as an approach to consider. It can also help 

in prioritizing congestion pricing projects as part of 

project investment decisionmaking.

Establishing Regional Partnerships 

Partnerships are critical in planning for congestion 

pricing, given the wide range of agencies and 

organizations that may play a role in implementation. 

Effective practices for advancing interagency 

collaboration include the following:
26 |

Congestion Pricing as a Comprehensive Approach to Regional Goals

In the Southern California region, the SCAG is using congestion pricing strategies as part of a comprehensive 

approach to meeting regional goals.

Source: Image courtesy of Annie Nam, Southern California Association of Governments

Identify agency roles clearly. It is important 

to define and understand clearly the roles and 

requirements of the various agencies that will need to 

be involved in any pricing arrangement early in the 

process. Disagreements are occasionally seen at the 

higher policy levels, but are more common at the level 

of planning specific details. When public agencies are 

not conflicted about their roles and responsibilities 

and have a strong partnership, they are able to move 

forward and garner support from other entities such 

as businesses. Such a partnership has been established 

in the Dallas-Fort Worth region between the MPO 

(North Central Texas 

Council of Governments), 

transit operators, and the 

private sector, which fully 

supports the managed lane 

projects in the region. 

Planning to receive Federal grants for congestion pricing projects facilitated regional collaboration 

in Los Angeles and Denver, unifying the local governments around common goals and setting the stage 

for future collaboration. Even though initial proposals were unsuccessful in both regions, the process of 

applying for the grants created partnerships that were fruitful in obtaining funding under subsequent grants. 
E ffective A pproaches for A dvancing C ongestion P ricing in a M etropolitan R egion | 27

Congestion-Related Performance Measures Used in the 2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the 

Dallas-Fort Worth Region

The North Central Texas Council of Governments used congestion-related performance measures such as travel 

time, reliability, and the annual cost of congestion to evaluate plan scenarios with and without priced facilities, 

compared with the baseline No Build scenario.

Source: Images courtesy of Dan Lamers, NCTCOG. Data from the 2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan.
28 |

Draw on the unique strengths and experiences of 

each agency. Although silos between and within agencies 

may be hard to eliminate, their various objectives, goals, 

and strengths can be creatively addressed to achieve 

collaboration. For instance, MPOs have the capacity and 

technical staff for planning; transit agencies for providing 

transit; toll authorities for tolling, and highway patrol for 

enforcement. If these entities can be brought together in 

planning a multimodal pricing project, drawing on their 

strengths and experience in each area, success can be 

achieved. This has been the experience in the Dallas region, 

which has the added benefit that the heads of the different 

agencies have been around for many years, leading to 

 Example of Regional Coordination in Los Angeles 

 Even though L.A. Metro has authority to implement tolls, responsibility for transit operations, 

 and has been working with the State DOT, the agency has been coordinating across a wide 

 range of agencies to move forward with its pilot HOT L.A.nes. Coordination with Caltrans 

 (California DOT) was required because Caltrans is responsible for the Environmental Impact 

 Review. L.A. Metro also had a Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrans on operations 

 and maintenance of the HOT lanes and funding agreements with the supporting cities. 

 Because of the presence of several state tolling facilities, user agreements were signed with all 

 tolling agencies because of the State’s requirements that all facilities be interoperable. It was also 

 important to consider where the revenues would be spent. The revenues from HOT lanes in 

 the L.A. region are to be used for transit improvements in the corridors where they were 

 generated. Extensive outreach with all agencies was required to bring about this coordination 

 of authority.

consistency of purpose. In Seattle, connections between 

agency staff (not necessarily the highest levels) facilitated 

collaboration, particularly in planning and analysis.

Often, the MPO is only responsible for long range 

planning and is not responsible for transit, parking, or toll 

collection. In these cases, an important role for the MPO 

is to lead the charge by getting the discussion started, 

bringing stakeholders to the table, and ensuring that they 

all have some of their interests met. In the Los Angeles 

region, L.A. Metro is the regional transportation agency 

responsible for transit operations and toll collection. This 

made coordination simpler locally, but the agency had to 

work with the regionwide MPO that has been working 

on its own plans of a 

managed lane network 

that crosses county 

boundaries. L.A. Metro 

also has Memoranda of 

Understanding on key 

aspects with the State 

DOT. 

In the New York 

metro area, although New 

York City, not the MPO, 

proposed cordon pricing, 

the MPO played an 

important role. NYMTC 

was in the process of a 

conformity determination 

and integrated 

congestion pricing 

into its Transportation 

Improvement Plan (TIP), 

making two runs of the 

model, with and without 

pricing. The MPO 

ensured that everything 

was in line with Federal 

processes and, as a 

regional body, facilitated 

a series of valuable and 

intense policy discussions.

In Minneapolis/

St. Paul, collaboration 

between the MPO, the 

 Regional Roles and Responsibilities in Dallas

 In the Dallas-Fort Worth region, the MPO (North Central Texas Council of Governments) 

 must coordinate daily with the separate Dallas and Fort Worth districts, the Texas Turnpike 

 Authority (the regional tolling authority), Texas DOT, and about two hundred local 

 governments. The MPO facilitates collaboration between the agencies, ensuring that “everyone 

 gets a piece of the managed lanes pie.” The breakdown of responsibilities in Dallas is as follows: 

	 	 • Toll collection and analysis – regional toll road authority, Texas Turnpike Authority;

	 	 • Enforcement – transit agency; and

	 	 • Distribution of revenues (if in excess) – MPO.

 A collaborative agreement was worked out so that all agencies have a role in the project; this 

 was the key to achieving inter-agency collaboration in the region.
E ffective A pproaches for A dvancing C ongestion P ricing in a M etropolitan R egion | 29

State DOT, the legislature, and the university helped 

move the HOT lane projects forward. Minnesota 

DOT was a leader in innovative highway management 

technologies and practices, the legislature provided 

much-needed regional policy support, experts from the 

University of Minnesota provided thought leadership 

and technical expertise, and the MPO conducted the 

analysis and regional planning efforts for managing 

congestion with a focus on transit improvements 

and fiscal discipline. Although the region had prior 

experience with congestion pricing projects, developing 

relationships between the agencies took time and 

required a cultural change.

High level political leadership. Ongoing support 

from a high-level elected official can be important for 

achieving regional collaboration among agencies. In 

the Minneapolis/St. Paul region, after the Governor 

approved the project, interagency collaboration at the 

regional level and collaboration with the State patrol 

has improved dramatically because these agencies 

often follow the Governor’s lead.

Analyzing Congestion Pricing as Part of 

the Planning Process 

Despite the many analytic challenges associated 

with addressing congestion pricing in the regional 

planning process, there are emerging examples of 

MPOs that have begun to conduct detailed analyses, 

integrate pricing into their metropolitan transportation 

plans, and can offer lessons for other regions, such as 

the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC, Seattle), 

the Metropolitan Council in Minneapolis/St. Paul, 

the Southern California Association of Governments 

(SCAG), and North Central Texas Council of 

Governments (NCTCOG, Dallas). The following are 

some effective strategies used by these regions.

Southern California Coordination Between Counties

In Southern California, different counties have already embarked on plans for managed lanes. SCAG, as the 

regional MPO, ensures coordination among the different plans and agencies. Analysis showed that the region 

has more inter-county trips than intra-county trips, making it essential to look at congestion pricing regionally. 

Source: Image courtesy of Annie Nam, Southern California Association of Governments
30 |

Update travel models to conduct detailed 

alternatives analysis and project selection. PSRC 

(Seattle) updated its travel demand model to analyze 

a range of pricing alternatives and conducted detailed 

benefit/cost analyses to determine the best alternative. 

PSRC conducted a pilot project with Federal funding 

support to study travel behavior changes under 

congestion pricing (The Traffic Choices Study) using 

GPS-based tolling meters in the vehicles of about 

275 volunteer households. The project provided 

valuable data on observed changes in driving patterns 

in response to experimental tolls charged on major 

freeways and arterials in the Seattle metropolitan area. 

These data were fed into PSRC’s travel demand model to 

facilitate better analysis of congestion pricing strategies, 

following which the model went through an extensive 

peer review process. 

The Metropolitan Council (Minneapolis) also 

upgraded its four-step model to accommodate 

evaluation of HOT lanes. San Francisco County has an 

activity-based model just for the county, but needed to 

expand it to the nine-county region’s employment shed 

to accurately analyze impacts. Market research was also 

conducted separately to understand user travel costs 

and make adjustments in the model. SCAG recognized 

limitations in its four-step modeling process and has 

invested heavily in model improvements and data 

collection.

Collect data to support good analysis. It is important 

to be able to answer quickly any questions related to key 

indicators and impacts in different locations using good 

data. For example, in San Francisco, when questions 

were raised about business impacts that could not be 

answered by the travel demand model, a retail survey was 

conducted to understand how shoppers shop and what 

the likely impacts would be. SCAG purchased INRIX 

speed data and outfitted trucks with GPS systems, 

spending about $ 2-3 million on data purchase for two 

key studies: the Regional Congestion Pricing Study and 

Goods Movement Study. In Chicago, by establishing 

a regional coalition, various regional agencies and 

operators were brought into the process, and they 

became a rich source of data and information, allowing 

San Francisco County Regional Transportation Authority (SFCTA)’s Analysis and Comparison of Scenarios

Source: San Francisco Mobility, Access, and Pricing Study, San Francisco County Transportation Authority, 2010.
E ffective A pproaches for A dvancing C ongestion P ricing in a M etropolitan R egion | 31

for the creation of a regional data 

archive to bring together data 

that was already being collected 

and that already existed with 

system operators. This reduced 

the expenses associated with 

purchasing data.

Understand revenue generation potential.

Estimating the revenues that will be generated from 

congestion pricing strategies over the life of the 

regional plan is important and requires development 

of appropriate tools to forecast revenues and analysis. 

It also may require going back and forth from the 

project-level scale to the regional-level scale. For 

instance, recognizing that shortfalls in the gas tax 

will lead to limited funding in future years, NCTCOG 

(Dallas) has been estimating revenues from multiple 

HOT lane projects and tolled facilities since the 1990s

to demonstrate fiscal constraint in its metropolitan 

transportation plan. The priced facilities have been 

adopted in NCTCOG’s 2030 

Metropolitan Transportation 

Plan and are expected to fund 

about 30 percent of the costs for 

roadway system improvements. 

Conduct benefit-cost 

analysis. A benefit-cost analysis 

(BCA) provides a useful 

framework for analysis and can 

be very useful to communicate 

the effects of congestion pricing 

programs to the public and 

decisionmakers because it is easily 

understandable. PSRC relied 

heavily on BCA as part of the 

analysis performed to integrate 

pricing into the regional plan. 

PSRC has trained economists 

on their staff who used the travel model outputs as 

inputs into a BCA tool to compare alternatives against 

the baseline. The analysis was done for five pricing 

scenarios with respect to detailed evaluation criteria 

focusing on mobility and equity. The analysis also 

For its Travel Choices Study, SCAG conducted a stated preference survey, receiving 3,500 responses 

from a six-county region, assessing eight hypothetical pricing scenarios including a regional 

network of HOT lanes (or “express lanes”), cordon and parking pricing, VMT fees, and full highway 

facility pricing (toll roads).

San Francisco’s Cordon Pricing Analysis

SFCTA conducted a detailed set of analyses involving travel analysis, surveys, and modeling to 

inform consideration of cordon pricing. The study assessed peak/off-peak reliability and travel time 

ratios, which are important not just for single occupancy vehicles (SOV) but also for transit, and 

found that less than a 1 square mile area in the city of San Francisco concentrates trips and jobs. The 

study considered times of day when congestion occurs and determined that an all-day charge as in 

London was not necessary; therefore, tolling would occur during peak periods only. The analysis 

modeled dozens of discrete geographic and time scenarios. Income equity issues also were examined 

early in the study, and only four percent of low income drivers were determined to travel during 

peak periods. The study also corrected the perception that the majority of traffic is caused by out-ofcity car drivers coming into the city; instead, more than half of the drivers are from the city of San 

Francisco, which surprised people. Surveys found that people value fare assistance for transit riders 

more than toll discounts for low income drivers. Finally, SFCTA created a “What We Heard, What 

We Did” section on website to show responsiveness through analysis, clearing misperceptions, and 

explanations of how scenario features were revised based on feedback.

Source: San Francisco Mobility, Access, and Pricing Study, San Francisco County Transportation 

Authority, 2010.

focused on zones where equity concerns would be 

greatest due to high proportions of poor and minority 

populations. Using this analysis, PSRC staff explained 

to decisionmakers that geographic equity was being 

approached in the wrong way; “how much money is 

being spent in my county?” is the wrong question to 

ask. Instead, one should look at which groups of users 

are receiving the benefits and ensure that the most 

vulnerable user groups are benefitted, regardless of 

geography. For example, the benefits of travel time 

savings and improvements in reliability on facilities 

in King County (Seattle area) extend to users who 

only work in the area but do not live there. These 

benefits even create spillover benefits in counties that 

will not receive many improvements as part of the 

plan. Showing where the money is spent and where 

the benefits accrue helped in communications with 

decision–makers in the Seattle region.
32 |

Atlanta’s Analysis of Economic Impacts from Congestion Pricing

An analysis of economic impacts from implementing congestion pricing in Atlanta using a benefits approach:

	 • Showed maps of the employment shed in the region (distance in which employees could travel in a certain

 time period to access jobs) in 2030 with and without a managed lane network. The analysis showed that 

 the increased access provided by the managed lanes in connecting employees to employers would lead to 

a tripling of worker accessibility (196 percent increase). 

	 • Showed that an 8 percent reduction in delay saves significant costs over 35 years.

Source: Image courtesy of Matt Fowler, Georgia Department of Transportation

Plan ahead and conduct a detailed equity analysis. 

Equity impacts must be analyzed and communicated 

for congestion pricing plans to be acceptable. To do 

this, it is important to analyze how congestion pricing 

will impact different segments of the population and 

different types of trips. Different jurisdictions and 

regional models must also be able to do income-stratified 

trip generation and distribution. The NCTCOG 

(Dallas) is conducting a detailed equity analysis and 

research on the economic impacts of pricing projects. It 

is evaluating systemwide trip lengths and tolls to ensure 

there are no negative impacts. NCTCOG is performing 

this evaluation because:

■ NEPA documents cannot be prepared without some 

equity analysis;

■ Acquiring right-of-way has equity implications as it 

can lead to displacements and job losses, so an analysis 

showing the extent of these potential negative impacts 

must be done;
E ffective A pproaches for A dvancing C ongestion P ricing in a M etropolitan R egion | 33

■ Environmental review also requires documentation 

on what the expected toll rate might be for a certain 

demographic group; an answer based on analysis 

must be available in the event of a legal challenge; and

■ It is important to consider what analyses can be 

performed in the planning stages such that the process 

does not have to be revisited during environmental 

review.

Gaining and Sustaining Support from 

Users and Decisionmakers 

Finally, it is important to gain support from users 

and decisionmakers to facilitate planning for and 

implementation of congestion pricing. Some key 

approaches for establishing the necessary policy 

foundation and authority for congestion pricing, as 

well as effective implementation, are noted below.

Benefit-Cost Analysis in the Seattle Region

PSRC relied on benefit-cost analysis as (BCA) part of the analysis performed to integrate pricing into the 

regional plan. Key features of the analysis are described below.

	 • Trip purposes were integrated with individual out-of-pocket costs to determine values of time for different

 income groups in terms of time savings and reliability benefits.

	 • Having incorporated user costs into the model, system optimization was assessed based on price on every

 time period and every link, assuming all users were traveling the way they wanted to. This analysis was 

 used to set appropriate toll rates.

	 • Minimizing diversion to arterials was the objective for freeway pricing.

	 • Parking pricing involved a 20 percent surcharge in congested times and a 5 percent surcharge at other

 times. The toll rates resulting from this optimization process were checked for reasonableness. 

 Depending on the facility, the result was a toll of 30-50 cents per mile.

As one of its scenarios in the 2040 plan, the Puget Sound region’s MPO analyzed the alternative of pricing all 

freeways and arterials (Alternative 5 below), which would prevent problems of traffic diversion from priced roads 

to other free roads. Although it is difficult to gain public acceptance for a comprehensive approach that involves 

pricing previously free lanes, the benefit-cost analysis showed that this option would be the most economically 

efficient, raise the most revenues, and result in the maximum reduction of congestion and emissions. 

Source: Matthew Kitchen, Puget Sound Regional Council
34 |

Seattle MPO Analysis of EJ Impacts

Analysis of Equity impacts on Environmental Justice Populations by PSRC:

Source: Puget Sound Regional Council Transportation 2040 Final Environmental Impact Statement
E ffective A pproaches for A dvancing C ongestion P ricing in a M etropolitan R egion | 35

Technical Evaluation Criteria used in PSRC Regional Plan Analysis

The Puget Sound Regional Council established a detailed framework of performance metrics to evaluate 

scenarios of the regional plan that included different types of congestion pricing strategies. The performance 

metrics were categorized as below.

Source: Puget Sound Regional Council Transportation 2040 Final Environmental Impact Statement
36 |

Establish a policy framework for implementing 

pricing and involving the private sector. One key 

mechanism for advancing pricing is to create a policy 

framework that requires consideration of pricing 

as part of new projects – e.g., NCTCOG (Dallas) 

established a key, three-step policy emphasizing that 

any additional capacity necessary in the region will be 

tolled, if warranted, to raise funds for regional capacity 

needs. The policy stipulates that: (i) all new limitedaccess facilities have to be tested for tolling feasibility 

and built as toll roads, if warranted; (ii) when existing 

freeways are reconstructed, the feasibility of tolled 

express lanes should be tested and these should be built, 

if warranted; and (iii) free lanes or gas tax lanes will 

not be converted to toll lanes. Moreover, the MPO has 

had support from the State legislature since the 1990s,

with a framework for regional revenue sharing and 

other policies created even before the first facility was 

constructed. Another useful mechanism is establishing 

guidelines for public-private partnerships; e.g., in 

Virginia, the State’s Public-Private Transportation 

Act enables it to work with the private sector to bring 

forward transportation improvements. 

Set price caps when private tolling authorities 

or the private sector are involved. While mistrust 

of toll authorities can be a barrier, public entities 

can establish agreements with the private operators 

to cap toll rates, as was done in Dallas, where this 

allowed the MPO to achieve public support for publicprivate partnerships (PPP). The MPO also included 

performance standards in these agreements (e.g., 

guaranteed speeds on the HOT lanes). But although 

a price ceiling garners public support, it is best to 

leave the policy flexible for accommodating any 

future adjustments because changing a legislatively 

established price cap may be challenging. In Orange 

County (Los Angeles), on 

the SR 91 Express lanes,

the price cap can be 

increased after a public 

hearing and only under 

certain conditions, like 

increased congestion levels or other parameters. 

Establish a revenue use policy. It is a good practice 

to set policy that establishes how the revenue will be 

used in advance of implementation of a congestion 

pricing system; i.e., whether the excess revenue will be 

used to fund capital costs for transit or operations and 

maintenance expenses for facilities. In Minneapolis/

St. Paul, the capital costs of the project had to be 

paid back first; only then could excess revenue be 

used to pay back the operations and maintenance 

costs of the HOT lanes, and finally any remaining 

revenue would be spent on transit service. In Dallas, 

the excess revenue policy requires that all revenue 

go to operations and 

maintenance of the 

managed lanes; anything 

beyond that goes to the 

public agencies that 

invested in upfront 

capital costs, allowing 

transit agencies and 

Texas DOT to share 

revenues.

Familiarize the public with the technologies and 

integrate systems. Focusing on operational issues like 

helping users understand occupancy requirements 

and how to pay tolls has an important pay off. The 

 In San Francisco County, to improve public confidence, local control of funding with an 

 expenditure plan or “lock box” tied to it has helped. The public can vote on what the funding 

 should be used for.

 In Minneapolis/St. Paul, the MPO is managing congestion by “tweaking” the system, including 

 several low cost/high benefit projects in the fiscally constrained regional plan. Five BRT projects 

 are proposed by 2020, with 300 miles of bus-only shoulder lanes having a 35-mph speed limit to 

 be used as priced lanes. Although the congestion pricing revenues are expected to provide some 

 funding for transit, it is recognized that the revenues will not be large. By fully utilizing the existing 

 right-of-way pavement capacity for the priced lanes, the MPO is able to keep project capital costs 

 low and use a more significant portion of the revenues to cover costs.
E ffective A pproaches for A dvancing C ongestion P ricing in a M etropolitan R egion | 37

experience for the public should be seamless, 

otherwise the many kinds of lanes and facilities 

(HOV lanes, HOT lanes, managed lanes, fully tolled 

facilities) can be confusing. This is an issue when 

transitioning between corridors with different 

vehicle occupancy requirements – e.g., from a HOV 

2+ occupancy requirement for driving free of charge, 

to HOV 3+ and then back to HOV 2+ in the same 

trip. As far as possible, occupancy requirements 

and technologies must be unified across the system. 

One way to help the public become familiar with the 

system is to set up a mobile customer service and 

information center that allows people to operate 

a sample transponder, view system maps, become 

comfortable with the technology, and then decide if 

they would like to become HOT lane users. 

Develop mechanisms to enforce occupancy 

requirements on HOT lanes. The L.A. HOT lane 

demonstration project on the I-110 corridor has 

a HOV 2+ requirement for driving free of charge 

that changes to HOV 3+ in peak hours. This makes 

enforcement challenging. A technological solution 

for this in L.A. is that travelers can specify the 

number of occupants on their in-vehicle transponder 

when they start a trip through a switch on the 

transponder that indicates whether the driver 

has one, two, or three additional persons in the 

car. This allows deduction of the appropriate 

charge as the vehicle moves between corridors 

with different occupancy requirements. All users 

in L.A. are required to have a transponder. In 

Dallas, travelers will be required to self-declare 

vehicle occupancy. 

Carefully consider how to set toll rates. The 

public values toll reliability. People will be more 

likely to use priced facilities if they know what 

the rate will be before travel. Regions can provide a pre-payment option so that users are able 

to look up the rates online before starting their 

trip and lock in the rates by pre-paying. In some 

regions like Denver, to obtain support from transit operators and create an incentive to shift to 

transit, the peak of the peak toll rate is kept equal 

to or higher than the transit fare. Similarly, in 

Los Angeles, the toll rate has to be 1.5 times higher than the express bus fare on the express lanes. 
38 |

5. Getting Started

Developing comprehensive regional congestion 

pricing plans cannot happen overnight and requires 

considerable effort to gain public and decisionmaker 

acceptance, develop interagency partnerships, and 

address other challenges. Fortunately, there are many 

smaller steps that planners, policymakers, and others 

can take to start this process.

■ Understand where and what types of congestion 

pricing strategies make sense. First and foremost, it 

is important to understand what kinds of congestion 

pricing strategies will be effective in addressing 

regional needs and how these strategies can support 

regional goals. While tolling is often used as a revenuegenerating mechanism, congestion pricing works best 

on corridors, bridges, tunnels, and networks that are 

severely congested and where a pricing signal can 

help to shift traffic to alternative modes, times of 

day, or facilities, or where the public desires a faster 

travel option. Pricing strategies should be explored 

with these effects in mind. Congestion pricing could 

be applied as one component of a broader regional 

pricing strategy to support investment needs. As a first 

step, planners can identify what characteristics make 

congestion pricing feasible in a particular corridor. 

■ Begin to educate and inform the public and 

stakeholders about congestion pricing. Before rolling 

out alternative strategy proposals, it is important to 

inform the public about the potential for pricing. This 

may be a process that involves many steps over time, 

including meeting forums with key decisionmakers, 

the business community, and other stakeholders. For 

instance, in 2003, in the Washington, DC metro area, 

the MWCOG held its first congestion pricing forum 

and created a Value Pricing Task Force. Over time, 

as the region and elected officials have become more 

comfortable with pricing, project implementation and 

broader consideration at a regional level are moving 

forward. For the public, it is important to communicate 

that the real value of the gas tax has been falling, since 

it is not indexed to inflation. For elected officials, 

it can be very beneficial to speak to elected officials 

in other regions that have implemented congestion 

pricing and to learn about projects and plans that have 

been implemented there.

■ Take small steps. Look for ways to take incremental 

steps and to leverage congestion pricing as a “win-win” 

solution. An underutilized HOV lane, for instance, 

could be a good option to consider for conversion 

to a HOT lane. Support for projects established in 

this incremental way can lead to broader acceptance 

of congestion pricing on the roadway network. 

For instance, the Minneapolis/St. Paul region has 

accomplished their managed lanes projects through 

incremental steps: the legislature allowed the MPO 

to operate bus-only shoulders in collaboration with 

transit agencies, the DOT, and FTA until initial safety 

concerns were demonstrated not to be an issue in 

practice, which opened the door to congestion pricing 

in the form of priced dynamic shoulder lanes.

■ Explore scenarios. An initial way to start a regional 

conversation may be by looking at congestion pricing 

as one scenario within a scenario planning process. 

By exploring the potential benefits of congestion 

pricing, decisionmakers can understand the potential 

impacts on revenues, system performance, and 

the environment within a neutral context. The 

congestion pricing scenario may not be selected, but 

it can help to further a regional conversation about 

how to move toward congestion pricing on a regional 

scale. As part of the federally required Congestion 
E ffective A pproaches for A dvancing C ongestion P ricing in a M etropolitan R egion | 39

Management Process (CMP) in metropolitan areas 

with populations greater than 200,000, congestion 

pricing may be considered one part of a toolbox of 

strategies to manage congestion. In that context, 

congestion pricing can be explored in combination 

with a range of strategies on a corridor and regional 

basis.

Overall, it is important to recognize that congestion 

pricing is a change in paradigm for many, and that an 

incremental approach will likely be needed. Planners 

and their stakeholders should be prepared to learn 

over time, gain additional data and information, and 

plan for change as they go through planning update 

cycles.
40 |

Federal Resources

FHWA, Congestion Pricing Primer Series

■ Federal Highway Administration, Congestion Pricing – A Primer, FHWA-HOP-07-074, (Washington, DC: 

 December 2006). Available at: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/congestionpricing/ 

■ Federal Highway Administration, Economics: Pricing, Demand, and Economic Efficiency - A Primer, 

FHWA-HOP-08-041, (Washington, DC: November 2008). Available at:

 http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08041/cp_prim4_00.htm

■ Federal Highway Administration, Income-Based Equity Impacts of Congestion Pricing, FHWA-HOP-08-040,

(Washington, DC: December 2008). Available at:

 http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08040/cp_prim5_00.htm

■ Federal Highway Administration, Non-Toll Pricing—A Primer, FHWA-HOP-08-044, (Washington, DC:

January 2009). Available at: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08044/cp_prim6_00.htm

■ Federal Highway Administration, Technologies That Complement Congestion Pricing—A Primer, 

FHWA-HOP-08-043, (Washington, DC: October 2008). Available at:

 http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08043/cp_prim3_00.htm

■ Federal Highway Administration, Technologies That Enable Congestion Pricing—A Primer, FHWA-

HOP-08-042, (Washington, DC: October 2008). Available at:

 http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08042/cp_prim2_00.htm

■ Federal Highway Administration, Transit and Congestion Pricing, FHWA-HOP-09-015, (Washington, DC:

April 2009). Available at: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop09015/cp_prim7_00.htm

■ Federal Highway Administration, Advancing Congestion Pricing in the Metropolitan Transportation 

 Planning Process: Four Case Studies, FHWA-HOP-11-002, (Washington, DC: September 2010). Available at: 

 http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop11002/index.htm

■ Federal Highway Administration, Congestion Pricing – A Primer: Metropolitan Planning Organization 

 Case Studies, FHWA-HOP-11-030, (Washington, DC: August 2011). Available at: 

 http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop11030/cm_primer_cs.htm

Resources
E ffective A pproaches for A dvancing C ongestion P ricing in a M etropolitan R egion | 41

■ Federal Highway Administration, Lessons Learned From International Experience in Congestion Pricing, 

FHWA-HOP-08-047, (Washington, DC: August 2008). Available at:

 http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08047/index.htm

■ Federal Highway Administration, Value Pricing Pilot Program: Lessons Learned, FHWA-HOP-08-023,

(Washington, DC: August 2008). Available at: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08023/index.htm

■ FHWA Office of Operations, Tolling and Pricing Program. Web. Last modified November 2011. Available at: 

 http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/

■ FHWA Office of Innovative Program Delivery, Road Pricing: Tolling & Pricing Programs. Web. Last accessed 

 on March 2012. Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/revenue/road_pricing/tolling_pricing/index.htm

■ National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program 

Development, TRB Report 686, (Washington, DC: 2011). Available at:

 http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/165117.aspx

■ American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on 

Planning, Road Pricing Communication Practices, NCHRP 08-36 Task 93, (Washington, DC: July 2010).

 Available at: http://statewideplanning.org/resource_list/road-pricing-communication-practices/

■ National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Improved Framework and Tools for Highway 

Pricing Decisions, NCHRP 08-57, (Washington, DC: June 2009). Available at:

 http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=933

■ Federal Highway Administration, A Domestic Scan of Congestion Pricing and Managed Lanes, FHWA-

HEP-09-044, (Washington, DC: April 2009). Available at:

 http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahep09044/index.htm

■ Federal Highway Administration, Considerations for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane to High 

Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lane Conversions Guidebook, FHWA-HOP-08-034, (Washington, DC: June 2007).

 Available at: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08034/index.htm

■ Transit Cooperative Research Program, Road Value Pricing - Traveler Response to Transportation System 

Changes, Report 95: Chapter 14, (Washington, DC: 2003). Available at:

 http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/161219.aspx

State and Local Resources

Atlanta

■ Georgia Department of Transportation, Metro-Atlanta Managed Lanes System Plan, (Atlanta, GA: June 

2009). Available at: http://www.dot.state.ga.us/aboutGeorgiadot/Board/Documents/2009%20Meetings%20

 Presentations/June/MLSP.pdf

■ Georgia Department of Transportation, Metro Atlanta Managed Lanes. Web. 26 Mar. 2012. 

 http://www.dot.ga.gov/informationcenter/programs/studies/managedlanes/Pages/default.aspx 
42 |

Chicago

■ Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, GO TO 2040 Plan, (Chicago, IL: October 2010). Available at: 

 http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/2040/download-the-full-plan

Dallas/Ft. Worth

■ North Central Texas Council of Governments, 2035 Mobility Plan, (Dallas-Fort Worth, TX: March 2011). Available at: 

 http://www.nctcog.org/trans/mtp/2035/index.asp

■ Texas Department of Transportation, Managed Lanes Handbook, Report 0-4160-24, (College Station, TX: October 2005). 

 Available at: http://managed-lanes.tamu.edu/resources/report-0-4160-24

Los Angeles

■ Southern California Association of Governments, Express Travel Choices Study. Web. Established in 2011. Available at: 

 http://www.expresstravelchoices.org/ 

■ Los Angeles Metro, Metro Express Lanes. Web. Last updated April 2011. Available at: http://www.metro.net/projects/expresslanes/ 

New York City

■ Schaller, Bruce. “New York City’s Congestion Pricing Experience and Implications for Road Pricing Acceptance in the United States.” 

Transport Policy 17.4 (2010): 266-73. Print. Available at: http://161.185.30.156/html/dot/downloads/pdf/schaller_paper_2010trb.pdf

San Francisco

■ Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Regional Express Lane Network, Web. Last updated February 2012. Available at: 

 http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/hov/

■ Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Transportation 2035 Change in Motion Plan, (San Francisco: May 2011). Available at: 

 http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/

■ San Francisco County Transportation Authority, Mobility, Access and Pricing Study, Web. Last updated December 2011. Available at: 

 http://www.sfcta.org/content/view/302/148/

■ San Francisco County Transportation Authority, Mobility, Access and Pricing Study, (San Francisco, CA: November 2010). 

Available at: http://www.sfcta.org/images/stories/Planning/CongestionPricingFeasibilityStudy/PDFs/MAPS_study_final_lo_res.pdf

Seattle

■ Puget Sound Regional Council, Traffic Choices Study – Summary Report, (Seattle, WA: April 2008). Available at:

 http://psrc.org/transportation/traffic

■ Puget Sound Regional Council, The Adopted Transportation 2040 Plan, (Seattle, WA: May 2010). Available at: 

 http://psrc.org/transportation/t2040/t2040-pubs/final-draft-transportation-2040

Puget Sound Regional Council Transportation 2040 Analytical Resources:

■ Puget Sound Regional Council, Transportation 2040 FEIS Alternatives Report, (Seattle, WA: March 2010) Available at: 

http://www.psrc.org/transportation/t2040/t2040-pubs/transportation-2040-final-environmental-impact-statement/
E ffective A pproaches for A dvancing C ongestion P ricing in a M etropolitan R egion | 43

■ Puget Sound Regional Council, Appendix D: Transportation 2040 FEIS Policy Analysis and Evaluation 

 Criteria Report, (Seattle, WA: February 2010). Available at: 

 http://www.psrc.org/assets/3698/Appendix_D_-_Policy_Analysis_and_Evaluation_Criteria_Report.pdf

■ Puget Sound Regional Council, Appendix G: Transportation 2040 Environmental Justice Details (Seattle, WA: 

 May 2010). Available at: 

 http://www.psrc.org/assets/4883/Appendix_G_-_Environmental_Justice_-_FINAL_-_August_2010.pdf

■ Puget Sound Regional Council, Appendix M: Transportation 2040 FEIS Environmental Justice Public 

Outreach Summary, (Seattle, WA: November 2009). Available at:

http://www.psrc.org/assets/3707/Appendix_M_-_Environmental_Justice_Public_Outreach_Summary_Report.pdf

■ Puget Sound Regional Council, Chapter 17: Environmental Justice, (Seattle, WA: March 2010). Available at: 

 http://www.psrc.org/assets/3692/17-Environmental_Justice.pdf

■ Puget Sound Regional Council, Appendix K: Transportation 2040 Coordinated Transit-Human Services 

 Transportation Plan. (Seattle, WA: August 2010). Available at: 

http://psrc.org/assets/4887/Appendix_K_-_Coordinated_Transit_Human_Services_Plan_-_FINAL_-_August_2010.pdf

Minneapolis/St. Paul

■ Minneapolis/St. Paul Twin Cities Metropolitan Council, 2030 Transportation Policy Plan, (Minneapolis/St. 

 Paul, MN: November 2010). Available at: 

 http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/transportation/TPP/2010/index.htm 

■ Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota MnPass Express Lanes. Web. Last accessed in March 

 2012. Available at: www.mnpass.org

Virginia

■ Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization, Hampton Roads 2034 Long-Range Transportation 

 Plan. (Hampton Roads, VA: January 2012). Available at: 

 http://www.keephamptonroadsmoving.com/index.asp 

Washington, DC

■ National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, Constrained Long Range Plan Aspirations Scenario, 

(Washington, DC: September 2008). Available at: http://www.mwcog.org/clrp/elements/scenarios.asp 
44 |

1. The Use of Congestion Pricing To Address Regional Goals

The table below highlights the regional goals that were discussed at the workshops, for which congestion pricing is being considered in a 

wide range of regions.

Appendix

Region Represented at 

Workshops Goals for which Congestion Pricing is being Applied

Seattle, WA

• Congestion relief

• Reduction in emissions and vehicle miles traveled (VMT)

• Economic efficiency

• Revenue generation

Minneapolis/

Saint Paul, MN

• Better utilization of HOV lanes by conversion to HOT lanes

• Need to maintain transit’s advantage by enhancing transit service

• Revenue generation

San Francisco County, CA

• Achieving a more balanced transportation system with greater use of transit, particularly outside the city

• Revenue generation

• Considering peak period cordon pricing as opposed to managed lanes because HOV lanes are all 

 outside the city and gridded road network in the city meant strong potential for diversion to other arterials. 

• Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (part of Climate Action Plan)

San Francisco Bay Area

MPO (MTC), CA

• Congestion reduction

• Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions

Dallas, TX

• Improvement in air quality

• Congestion management while maintaining fiscal constraint, leading to use of PPPs to fund managed lane projects

• Need to raise funds for maintenance 

Los Angeles and Southern 

California, CA (SCAG and 

L.A. Metro)

• Congestion reduction to improve economic competitiveness

• Revenue generation is a secondary goal

Hampton Roads, VA • Manage congestion and move it outside of peak periods

• Revenue generation

New York City, NY

• Congestion management

• Funding to maintain transit in state of good repair

• Urban livability and sustainability

Washington, D.C.

• Congestion management through pricing of new and/or existing lanes

• Focused/concentrated growth in activity centers and around transit stations

• Revenue for transit and financing for new highway capacity

Orlando, FL •Expand capacity in a financially viable way
E ffective A pproaches for A dvancing C ongestion P ricing in a M etropolitan R egion | 45

Region Represented at 

Workshops Goals for which Congestion Pricing is being Applied

Kansas City, KS • No severe congestion yet, but need to plan for expected growth and shortfalls in revenues

Phoenix, AZ • Aggressive highway building to keep up with growth has helped manage congestion, but considering 

 congestion pricing in the medium term for system management.

Atlanta, GA

• Congestion management, while ensuring that the project is financially possible, therefore using a public 

 private partnership for project delivery

• Increased access to jobs by improving travel times and connectivity

Chicago, IL • Raise money in a strategic way to raise transportation system performance

• Reduction of travel delays and improvement in reliability

2. Agenda for the Workshops

The Role of Congestion Pricing in Supporting Funding and Regional Goals:

Integrating Pricing in Metropolitan Transportation Plans

As metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and their planning partners in State Departments of Transportation (DOTs), transit 

agencies, and local governments work together to develop metropolitan transportation plans, many agencies are looking for innovative approaches to address funding needs and to advance regional goals, including livability and environmental quality. The workshops will help 

participants:

■ Explore the potential role of congestion pricing in supporting funding needs, livability, and other regional goals;

■ Identify what pricing approaches may be effective in different settings and in combination with different transportation investment strategies; 

■ Learn lessons on effective approaches for integrating congestion pricing into regional planning, including approaches for advancing public 

acceptance of these strategies.

Agenda

Time Session

8:30 AM Registration Sign-in / Coffee

9:00 AM Welcome and Introductions

9:20 AM Why Consider Pricing as part of Metropolitan Transportation Planning?

10:30 AM Break

10:45 AM Pricing in Support of Regional Goals and Addressing Transportation Challenges

11:30 AM Integrating Congestion Pricing into Metropolitan Transportation Planning

12:00 PM Lunch - Challenges to Implementing Congestion Pricing

1:00 PM Public / Decisionmaker Acceptance and Equity Issues

1:45 PM Interagency Collaboration: Developing Agreement on Pricing Objectives and Structure

2:30 PM Break

2:45 PM Analytical / Process Issues in Integration of Pricing in Metropolitan Planning

3:30 PM Integrating Pricing into Metropolitan Transportation Plans: Steps for Getting Started

4:30 PM Moving forward / Closing Remarks

4:45 PM Adjourn
46 |

1. Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon’s Mileage Fee Concept and Road User Fee Pilot 

Program: Final Report. November 2007. Available at: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/

RUFPP/docs/RUFPP_finalreport.pdf.

2. Transport for London, “Central London Congestion Charging: Impacts Monitoring – Second 

Annual Report,” April 2004. Available at: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Impactsmonitoring-report-2.pdf

3. Boarnet, Marlon G. Transportation Infrastructure and Sustainable Development: New Planning 

Approaches for Urban Growth. University of California Transportation Center, Fall 2008.

4. Transport for London Evaluation Reports for the London Congestion Charging Scheme

5. Excess revenues may not always be a realistic expectation with congestion pricing programs.

6. 	 TRB Report 686, “Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development,” Transportation Research Board, 2011.

References
For more information, contact: 

Wayne Berman

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Operations (HOP)

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, DC 20590

Tel: 202-366-6726

Fax: 202-366-3225
U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Operations (HOP)

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, DC 20590

Tel: 202-366-6726

Fax: 202-366-3225

Office of Operations Web Site

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov

March 2012

FHWA-HOP-12-030